Wednesday 31 October 2012

Push for same-sex marriage is led by a minority, says bishop

Push for same-sex marriage is led by a minority, says bishop


Bishop Kieran Conry, bishop of Arundel and Brighton

 
“Very often” some social policies, such as requiring church-run adoption agencies to consider same-sex couples as potential adoptive parents or proposals to legalize same-sex marriage, “are politically motivated in terms of vote-catching and representation of politicians as standing up for human rights,” he said.

Such proposals are not necessarily coming from the gay community, he said during a briefing with journalists at the Vatican press office. Bishop Kieran Conry, bishop of Arundel and Brighton,  is one of hundreds of bishops attending the world Synod of Bishops on the new evangelization.

People advocating such policies seem to be “some other small group” that is not personally invested in the issue, but rather is motivated by defending human rights in very general, broadly sweeping way, the English bishop said.

Brighton “is regarded as the gay capital of the United Kingdom”, and the bishop said members of the gay community he has spoken to “respect the right of the churches to have their own rules” on issues.

The Equality Act 2006 prohibited discrimination against homosexuals in the provision of goods and services. It required all adoption agencies, including Church-run groups, to not discriminate against and to assess same-sex couples as potential adopters and foster caregivers.

Almost all of the 13 Catholic adoption agencies in Britain were forced to either sever ties with their dioceses or close down because of the laws.

One Catholic adoption agency, which covers three dioceses in northern England, fought the regulations through the courts. However, in 2010, the Charity Commission for England and Wales refused the agency permission to amend its constitution so it could turn away gay and unmarried couples.

Scotland, which has its own legislature, allowed its Catholic adoption agencies a loophole to carry out their work in accordance with church teaching, Ann Widdecombe, a former Conservative Party minister, told US Catholic News Service in 2010.

Bishop Conry said, however, that the agency his diocese helps run went along with the law because it did not want to deny children needed services and “we knew very well that [gay couples requesting to adopt from a Catholic charity] would not be an issue.”

They had seen that when other British dioceses were “virtually forced” to close down their adoption agencies by local authorities rather than be forced to comply with the law, it was the children who paid the price, he said.

“We wanted to make sure that the interests of the children in that case were served first” by keeping the agency open, operated and funded by the church. “We simply withdrew the name ‘Catholic’” from the agency’s title, he said.

As a result, each year “there are 30 children who are taken out of institutions and put into families,” he said.

Also, since the legislation has been enacted, the diocesan adoption agency “has not had a single request from a gay couple to adopt or foster a child.”

When asked what the agency would do if a same-sex couple did request to adopt or provide foster care, he said, that decision “is not in the hands of a few people” and is always based on what’s best for the child.

“We’re not going to have a public fight that we’re going to lose possibly and come out of it with everyone suffering,” he said. “We work on the principle: you only fight battles you can win.”

Currently, the bishops are fighting British government proposals to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples.

The Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales has said Government assurances that churches would not be compelled to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies were meaningless because the law could be amended at any time.

Civil partnerships introduced by the government in 2004 already conferred many of the rights of marriage on homosexual couples.

Cardinal Keith O’Brien of St. Andrews and Edinburgh, Scotland, said in March that the drive to legalise gay marriage represented “an attempt to redefine marriage for the whole of society at the behest of a small minority of activists.”

ANTIDOTE TO HALLOWEEN 'Interview with an Exorcist'



ANTIDOTE TO HALLOWEEN '


Interview with an Exorcist'

By Matt C. Abbott

The following are substantial excerpts from the book Interview with an Exorcist: An Insider's Look at the Devil, Demonic Possession, and the Path to Deliverance, authored by Father José Antonio Fortea, a priest of the Diocese of Alcala de Henares (Madrid), Spain, and an expert in the field of demonology. Thanks to Matthew Pinto and Mike Flickinger of Ascension Press for allowing me to reprint this material.

Foreword

We live in a skeptical age, one which finds the very idea of personified evil spirits to be a superstitious remnant of the Middle Ages. Those people — and religious traditions — who believe in the existence of the devil and demons are often ridiculed as being out of touch with modern times. The contemporary Western mentality is that evil is merely the result of an inadequate social environment or due to purely psychological factors, causes which can be remedied with a social program or medication. In this view, the only "exorcisms" necessary are those which rid our society of poor social conditions, ignorance, or psychopathology. Many Christians — among them not a few Catholics — have succumbed to this mentality as well. They are formed more by the culture in which we live than by the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the teaching of the Church.

Yet even a cursory reading of the gospels gives us many explicit references to the reality of demons and demonic possession. Indeed, we can see that deliverance from evil spirits played a central role in Jesus' ministry, and Jesus Himself cited these healing acts as proof that He was the Messiah (Mt 12:28; Mk 3:22-27). Our Lord cast out demons by "the finger of God" (Lk 11:20), by His own divine authority. Jesus commanded the demons to depart and they obeyed (Mt 8:16; Mk 9:24). The ministry of Jesus was essentially one of reconciliation and healing, the salvation of souls. Throughout the gospels, we see Jesus healing people's physical and spiritual illnesses, and among these people were those possessed by evil spirits. Exorcism of evil spirits clearly was an act of healing.

This same ministry of exorcism and healing Jesus handed on to His apostles, granting them the authority to cast out demons in His name from the very beginning of their ministry (Mt 10:1, 10:8; Mk 6:7; Lk 9:1, 10:17). Furthermore, when the apostles asked Jesus to teach them how to pray, He gave them the powerful words of the Our Father, including its concluding line, "deliver us from evil." As the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains, these words do not merely refer to some abstract notion of evil or sin; they refer to evil personified in malevolent spirits, particularly in Satan, "the Evil One" (see CCC 2851-2854). While this petition generally refers to the devil's ordinary temptations, it also encompasses the notion of demonic possession and oppression.

When needed, the Church continues to exercise this ministry of Jesus, carefully discerning when true possession is present and permitting those priests who have been trained in the rite of exorcism and with the permission of their bishop to perform it. In the cases of oppression by evil spirits or curses, a renouncement of the evil spirit or a breaking of the curse through the Sacrament of Penance and the deliverance prayer brings about healing.

In this fascinating, easy-to-read book, Interview with an Exorcist: An Insider's Look at the Devil, Demonic Possession, and the Path to Deliverance, exorcist Fr. José Antonio Fortea brings to light crucial aspects of this important ministry. He addresses 110 practical questions about the devil, demonic possession, and the path to deliverance. In the process, he provides bishops, priests, and laity alike with sound guidelines for determining the influence of evil spirits and the important spiritual questions it raises. Catholics need to learn to recognize the reality of evil, evil spirits, and the Evil One. In this way they may learn to discern in the spiritual life between good and evil, between the Truth — Jesus Christ — and the Father of Lies — Satan.

I do, however, have an important warning for you. Although all Catholics should have a basic understanding of the reality of evil, we should also avoid being overly preoccupied with the topic of the devil. The Evil One is capable of using such a fascination as a means to ensnare us — with despair, fear, or discouragement. We need not fear! "There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear" (1 Jn 4:18). In the call to holiness — intimacy with the three divine Persons of the Trinity — we are encouraged to keep our focus always on the love that Jesus Christ has for us.

As the author of Hebrews reminds us, "Lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith" (Heb 12:1-2). Jesus' deepest desire for all people is that they come to know the love of the Father for them and live in the heart of the Trinity. St. Ignatius of Loyola calls upon us to know Satan as "the enemy of human nature." He asks us to pray and to discover places in our hearts where we hold on to unbelief or are weak in faith. It is here that the Father of Lies will tell us that we are not the beloved of the Father of Jesus, our Abba. Indeed, if we attend humbly to receiving the love of the Father where we sense the depth of our human frailty and powerlessness, we can taste anew St. Paul's experience of God's healing love and power making us strong (see 2 Cor 12:9-10; Heb 11:34).

Additionally, when tempted, we should not despair or become discouraged, for Jesus has experienced the very same (Heb 4:15). Jesus Christ has won the victory over sin, evil, and death through His passion, death, and resurrection. By His grace, we can recognize and reject Satan and his empty promises. The Lord in His tender mercy will unbind any shackles of evil and sin we bring to Him! I pray that as you read this book you will come to know the freedom that Jesus Christ desires for you and has bestowed on you. May all of us "with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need" (Heb 4:16).

Most Reverend Samuel J. Aquila, D.D., Bishop of Fargo



    31. Can demons unite and concentrate their efforts to influence society?

    The greatest power of the demons lies in tempting us to sin. Since they communicate among themselves, demons certainly work together and concentrate their efforts to influence human society. They do this by collectively devising strategies and by putting them into action in a specific place. While they desire to tempt everyone to sin, they know very well that certain individuals have the ability to influence society as a whole because of their wealth, fame, or power. The communications media are a particularly powerful influence on today's society. As such, the demons especially target these elites.

    In politics, demons are never neutral — they always analyze the situation and focus their energies on those political officials and candidates who will (wittingly or unwittingly) favor their goals. Undoubtedly, in the German election of 1932, the demons understood perfectly that their goals would be better served by tempting the German people to vote for a rather unknown, fringe candidate named Adolph Hitler. Does this mean that Hitler's rise to power can be attributed solely to demonic forces? No, human choice was involved; but demons were undoubtedly involved, too. Similarly, the Church Fathers, in their writings about Christian persecution by the state, often point out that such persecution is rooted in the instigation of demons on rulers and the population as a whole.

    We must always remember that the devil is the Father of Lies, and he seeks to make evil appear good and good appear evil. At the heart of much evil is the rejection of human dignity; the demons want us to forget that we have been created in the image and likeness of God.

    There is the famous vision of Pope Leo XIII in which he saw the infernal spirits concentrated on Rome. This vision was the origin of the Prayer to St. Michael, which the Holy Father sent to the world's bishops in 1886 and asked the entire Church to recite. The work of the angels and the prayers of Christians can impede the plans of darkness. This is why prayer and sacrifice are so important; they are a bulwark against the powers of hell in this world and a source of abundant blessings.

    Though we must do battle in this invisible struggle with spiritual powers, we should always remember that in the exercise of our free will we are the authors of our own destiny. The demons can only influence us to the extent that we let them. In the end, we do what we choose and are ultimately responsible for these choices. Not even the concerted effort of millions of demons can force us to do something we really don't want to do. When tempted, prayer is our greatest weapon, a weapon as powerful as the greatest army or wealth. The demons know the power of prayer and fear it.

    55. What order do the three temptations of Jesus in the desert follow? Is there any significance to this order?

    In the synoptic gospels, we see how the devil tempted Jesus in the wilderness immediately prior to the start of His public ministry (see Mt 4:1-11; Mk 1:9-15; Lk 4:1-13). These temptations were those of bread, power, and worldly recognition. Now then, why would the devil tempt Jesus to worship him when he did not even get Him to break His fast? In the end, why did he tempt Jesus with jumping off the pinnacle of the Temple? If Jesus had already rejected the glory of the whole world, why is the devil's last temptation seemingly so minor?

    At first sight, it seems logical that the devil's temptations of Jesus would have started with the greatest sin, and not achieving this, the devil would have moved on to lesser sins. So he would first tempt Jesus with idolatry and follow up with something that is not even a venial sin, such as breaking a voluntary fast.

    But one's first impression is that the succession of the devil's temptations does not follow a logical order. Actually, the succession of the devil's attack follows a more subtle logic. It follows the order of temptations that a soul suffers when it decides to move forward with living a spiritual life. That is why there is a deep symbolism in these three temptations. The devil first tempts Jesus with things of the flesh, symbolized by the bread. This temptation symbolizes what the ascetic calls the "night of the senses." If the soul resists this type of temptation (i.e., all the bodily appetites), there is no reason for the devil to continue tempting in this way because the soul has fortified itself against it. Having passed through the night of the senses, the devil then tempts with the world. The soul feels the beauty and attractions of the world that it has left. This is a symbol of the "night of the spirit." Here, the soul is tempted by the world in which it lives but no longer enjoys. If this temptation is resisted, one final danger remains: pride. This is pride in the gifts one has received from God.

    These three temptations symbolize the phases of temptations we go through in the spiritual life. It has to be added that, concretely, those which the devil used with Jesus were especially subtle:

    First, the devil tempted Jesus not with sin per se but with imperfection. He was asked to stop doing a good, i.e., his fasting, and turn stones into bread.

    Then, He was tempted with the spiritual good of the world. It is as if the devil were saying, "Make a sign of acknowledgment toward me, proud as I am, and, as a reward, I will put myself at your side. All I ask is that you acknowledge me, and I will help you in your work of saving souls. Are you not humble? Are you not capable of lowering yourself a little more for the eternal good of souls?" This second temptation is packed with tremendous spiritual meaning. Jesus was not asked to stop being God; He was only asked to humble Himself a bit more. Could not the Just One, who had made so many sacrifices for souls, make one more? It is the temptation to do a little evil so as to achieve a great good.

    The final temptation is that of pride — to be publicly recognized. It was to prescind from the fact that it is God, in His time, who exalts His servants. Here, the devil was saying, "Even though God decides the time and the moment, why not bring the moment forward? Why remain in obscurity when so much good can be done by coming out into the light in a glorious and spectacular way?" We can see that this third temptation is the most complex and subtle of all.

    73. Why does God allow demonic possessions to occur?

    While this is ultimately a mystery, we can see that God allows possession for the following reasons:

    Possession demonstrates the truth of the Catholic faith.

    Possession punishes sinners who seek a relationship with evil.

    Possession can be a spiritual benefit.

    Possession can produce wholesome teachings for humanity.

    Since God allows physical illness, which often brings about an increase in faith, there are even more reasons for Him to permit a reality — possession — that often brings about an even deeper faith. Possession is a phenomenon in which the power of God, Christ, and the Church is clearly demonstrated. It is like an open window through which we can look at the world of hatred and demonic suffering. It is an open window through which we can glimpse some of the invisible power of angelic natures. And the good that comes from all of this normally affects those present for the rest of their lives.

    I say "normally" since merely being present at an exorcism does not guarantee a deeper faith. There are those who, after witnessing an exorcism, attribute everything they have witnessed to natural (or unknown) causes. We shouldn't be surprised at this. After all, there were people in Jesus' time who did not believe in Him even after witnessing His miracles. We have to understand that, regardless of what we see, grace is required for faith. If a person freely decides to resist grace's interior and invisible invitation, he could see the heavens open and hear God speaking to him from on high through the clouds and still believe he was having a hallucination. It is not what we experience that ignites the interior of our immortal souls with the flame of faith; it is the grace of God.

Divine dilemma

Sistine Chapel ceiling at 500: The Vatican's dilemma




Michelangelo's Creation of David in the Sistine Chapel The Sistine Chapel frescoes took Michelangelo four years to complete

 

Michelangelo's famous frescoes have been described as one of the world's supreme sights.
In scene after scene, some of the Old Testament's most powerful stories unfold.
And at the centre of this vast work is one of the best known images in Western art; the depiction of God reaching out to touch Adam into life.
But for some, the room has become a victim of its own fame and magnificence. They say it just attracts far too many tourists.
Twenty-thousand visitors pour through the Chapel's doors every day; more than five million a year.
And the Italian literary critic, Pietro Citati, recently launched a searing attack on the Vatican authorities for allowing in such huge numbers.
 

The Sistine Chapel ceiling

  • Commissioned by Pope Julius II, Michelangelo began work in July 1508, and the ceiling was unveiled on 1 November 1512
  • Michelangelo accepted the commission unwillingly at first as he considered himself to be a sculptor rather than a painter
  • The Sistine ceiling was the first, but not the last fresco Michelangelo undertook
  • The central ceiling vault depicts nine scenes from the Book of Genesis: three of the Creation, three the fall of Adam and Eve and three of the story of Noah
  • The Sistine Chapel was named for Pope Sixtus IV, the uncle of Pope Julius II
  • Michelangelo later said: "After four tortured years, more than 400 over life-size figures, I felt as old and as weary as Jeremiah. I was only 37, yet friends did not recognise the old man I had become."

Writing in the pages of Corriere della Sera newspaper he went as far as to describe the crowding on an average visit as an "unimaginable disaster".
"In the universal confusion no-one saw anything," he wrote.
And speaking to the BBC he reinforced his criticism.
"The Sistine Chapel was full of people - a huge crowd, packed tightly together... and they were all breathing! There was this dense 'human-ness'! Human sweat. It was horrendous."
Mr Citati said that this endless, rising, humid "wall of human breath" could be damaging for the priceless frescoes above. Responding to this kind of criticism, the director of the Vatican Museums, Antonio Paolucci, acknowledged that there was a "serious problem".
He said that the whole doctrine of the Catholic Church was set out in the images in the Sistine Chapel, and that he wanted everyone who visited to be able to appreciate that symbolic system.
But Mr Paolucci accepted that that was not easy to do when the room is packed.
"It becomes noisy, people are confused, bewildered - it's hard to understand." he said. "Too many people make it uncomfortable... and it also creates a problem for the conservation of the frescoes."
Mr Paolucci said plans to improve the ventilation and counter the threat from humidity in the Chapel would be unveiled soon.
But he also said that, ultimately, steps might have to be taken to restrict the numbers allowed in.
"We may get to that point - if necessary - a so-called 'limited number' of visitors," Mr Paolucci said.
"But so far we've tried to avoid this because the Sistine Chapel for those who visit the Vatican is not only a place of art but also a spiritual, religious place."
'A living death'
There is an argument that it should be made as easy as possible for any pilgrim coming to Rome to see this room that has such a significant place in the Catholic world.
Pope Benedict celebrates baptisms in the Sistine Chapel (January 2012) The Sistine Chapel is also a papal conclave where the College of Cardinals meets to elect a new Pope
And just a matter of weeks ago, in a newspaper article, Mr Paolucci said it would be as "unthinkable" to limit access to the Sistine Chapel as it would be to limit access to the famous shrine at Lourdes.
But the critic, Mr Citati takes a darker view, arguing that it is all about money.
The Church makes a significant amount out of visitors to the Chapel and the other delights of the Vatican Museums.
Everybody in the long queues in St Peter's Square is paying more than 15 euros (£12.50) for a ticket.
But it is possible though to avoid the masses if you can spare close to 220 euros for a private tour. Each involves about 10 people who are allowed into the Chapel outside the standard opening hours.
Mr Citati is not the first person to take issue with the number of visitors being allowed into the Chapel.
 
Writing shortly before his recent death, the art critic Robert Hughes recalled reading of the German writer, Goethe, visiting the Chapel 200 years ago.
Back then the Sistine was "a place where one could be alone, or nearly so, with the products of genius," Hughes wrote.
"The very idea seems absurd, today; a fantasy. Mass tourism has turned what was a contemplative pleasure for Goethe's contemporaries into an ordeal more like a degrading rugby scrum."
He said that painting was a silent art, that deserved silence from those who came to view it.
But these days the Sistine Chapel is filled with the sound of its murmuring mass of visitors.
And it is hard to ignore the conversations around you.
"Can you imagine someone painting this... with a brush!" an American tourist exclaimed to his companions on a recent visit.
Then they discussed what Michelangelo would have been paid. And soon afterwards they were laughing out loud, thoroughly enjoying themselves but prompting an angry security man to come stalking over, glaring at them, and "shushing".
It was the sort of exchange that drains the place of the spiritual intensity that Michelangelo wanted to give it.
Robert Hughes said the modern atmosphere in the Sistine represented "a kind of living death for high culture" at the hands of mass culture.
And with its talk now of the possibility of eventually limiting numbers, perhaps the Vatican is beginning to feel the same way.

Tuesday 30 October 2012

Ted Kennedy's widow opposes assisted-suicide initiative in Massachusetts

Ted Kennedy's widow opposes assisted-suicide initiative in Massachusetts

 
CWN - October 29, 2012
    Victoria Reggie Kennedy, the widow of longtime Senator Ted Kennedy, has taken a strong stand in opposition to “Proposition 2,” a statewide ballot initiative that would legalize physician-assisted suicide in Massachusetts. The proposal “seems harsh and extreme to me,” wrote Victoria Kennedy in a column that appeared in the Cape Cod Times. “It's not, in my judgment, about death with dignity at all,” she wrote, adding the measure stood in stark opposition to her late husband’s commitment to providing adequate health care for all citizens. Proposition 2 is unjust, Kennedy wrote, because it is “intended to exclude family members from the actual decision-making process to guard against patients' being pressured to end their lives prematurely.” She added that the bill also places undue weight on a doctor’s diagnosis that a patient has less than 6 months to live. Speaking from experience, the Senator’s widow notes that Ted Kennedy’s terminal cancer was discovered, he was told he had 4-5 months to live. “Because that first dire prediction of life expectancy was wrong, I have 15 months of cherished memories,” Victoria Kennedy said.

Sunday 28 October 2012

An Orthodox priest has shown just how many unborn lives one person can save

An Orthodox priest has shown just how many unborn lives one person can save

Fr Alexis Tarasov says that sometimes talking and listening to someone is all it takes


Francis Phillips

Francis Phillips reviews books for the Catholic Herald.

The caring approach of Russian hospitals today stands in contrast to the forced birth policy of Ceaușescu (Photo: PA)

Having written a blog on Monday about recent headlines in the abortion debate and ending with a quotation from a mystical insight of G K Chesterton’s, it is good to follow it up with this heartening story related by Thaddeus Baklinski on LifeSiteNews: that a Russian priest has saved 2,000 babies from abortion. It seems that Fr Alexis Tarasov, an Orthodox priest in the Volgograd region of Russia, has been praised for his rescue work by the Russian Ministry of Health. Fr Tarasov’s counselling initiative has reduced the abortion rate in his area by 25 per cent in the last five years. In a joint venture by the local authority and the Orthodox Church, a Centre for the Protection of Motherhood and Childhood has now been opened. As Fr Tarasov explains, its focus is simply to provide women with trained and sympathetic listeners who will also tell them about the abortion procedure and its potential effects on their health and offer them practical help.
Tellingly, he comments that “Quite often, the only thing needed to persuade a mother from this terrible decision is simply to talk to someone with an open heart.” According to Nikolai Zarkin, head doctor of Volgograd’s Central Maternity Hospital No 2, “Today, all women seeking abortions are sent by gynaecologists for consultation with the psychologist working at each prenatal hospital.” He added that as a result, 20 per cent of mothers now refuse abortion. Meanwhile, Fr Tarasov has organised legal aid and clothing for the mothers when their babies are born, as well as housing. “It is essential to build homes and equip them so that women can live with their children until their housing problem is resolved,” he comments.
This story tells us so much: that one concerned and caring individual can do great good; that the authorities in Russia give their own support, not because of their religious beliefs but presumably because of the social problems associated with a shrinking population and the benefits of encouraging birth rather than death; and that hospital doctors also recognise the importance of an independent consultation with a psychologist so that pregnant women can have the time and space to reflect on their future.
This is very different from the forced birth scenario of the late and brutal Communist dictator, President Ceaușescu, in Romania, which led to the abandonment and neglect of unwanted babies in state orphanages. It is also very different from the situation in Britain, where most of the thousands of abortions carried out every year are done by private clinics linked to the NHS, which have a vested financial interest in not trying to help vulnerable women seek a different option.
Fr Tarasov began his pro-life apostolate in his parish in the town of Voljsk, where he explains he spent hours talking to women who were considering abortion. He then expanded his work with visits to the local hospital. This was followed with the establishment of a crisis pregnancy centre. His dedication reminded me of an article I read some years ago about a humble Chinese man who built himself a shack next to a bridge over a gorge, in order to run out and stop people who were planning to use the bridge for a suicide jump. It seems he saved hundreds of lives in this simple way: by persuading suicidal people that he cared about them and that life was worth living.
Sometimes you have to cut through the red tape, the legal niceties and the conventions and just engage with someone face to face and heart to heart.

Saturday 27 October 2012

Proof of heaven

Proof of heaven



“Heaven is Real,” a Newsweek cover proclaimed. Renowned neurosurgeon Eben Alexander’s scientific world view had previously led him to view near-death experiences as having plausible scientific explanations. However, spending seven days in a coma convinced him that the afterlife truly exists.
Accounts of out-of-body encounters with the spiritual world have a long history. Swedish mystic Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) wrote 25 books about his trips to heaven and hell. However, public fascination with the subject exploded after the 1975 publication of physician Raymond Moody’s “Life After Life”and cardiologist Maurice Rawlings’s “Beyond Death’s Door,” both of which featured dozens of accounts of near-death experiences (NDEs). These NDEs commonly involved feelings of being out of one’s body and of peace and quiet, meeting one or more “Beings of Light,” a life review, and a new perspective on life and death.
Numerous investigators stress the positive benefits of NDEs. Moody claimed that every subject he interviewed “had a very deep and positive transformation.” People lost the fear of dying and going to hell and love dominated their lives. They gained an intense appreciation for life, developed a deeper spirituality, and took more personal responsibility.
Mally Cox-Chapman maintains that NDEs produce an enhanced self-image, improved relationships, greater purpose in work, and a richer spiritual life. Moreover, many visions of heaven include joyful reunions with deceased loved ones, which help console those who long to see family and friends again. NDEs, she adds, send “the message we most need to hear” today: “forgiveness and unconditional love.”
In a runaway best seller — “Heaven Is for Real: A Little Boy’s Astounding Story of His Trip to Heaven and Back” — a 4-year-old gives an account of his trip to the other side. Nevertheless, the age and background of the boy who recounted his journey to his pastor father and the circumstances under which his near-death experience occurred led many to offer alternative explanations for his story.
Numerous scientists contend that NDEs are “caused by a lack of oxygen to the brain, or drugs, or psychological stresses evoked by the fear of dying.” Skeptics insist that “drugs, oxygen deprivation ... disassociation, temporal lobe stimulation, endorphin surge, anesthesia” or “even memories of birth” cause these experiences.
Eben Alexander argues that his account is more credible because his trip to the other side occurred while he was in a deep coma during which the human part of his brain, the neocortex, was inactivated. His higher-order brain functions were “totally offline.” Science cannot explain, Alexander asserts, how his “brain-free consciousness journeyed to another, larger dimension of the universe.” Previously, he would have explained what he experienced as impossible.
He encountered the same dimension “described by countless subjects of near-death experiences and other mystical states.” No one else, however, had traveled to this celestial realm while his cortex was completely inoperative and his body was under meticulous medical observation, as Alexander’s was during his coma.
Alternative explanations of NDEs posit that they “are the results of minimal, transient, or partial malfunctioning of the cortex.” However, Alexander’s near-death experience occurred while his cortex shut down as documented by his CT scans and neurological examinations.
During most of his journey, a woman accompanied Alexander. She communicated three major points to him: “You are loved and cherished, dearly, forever;” “you have nothing to fear;” and “there is nothing you can do wrong.” This message filled the neurosurgeon with great relief. He concluded that he had been given “rules to a game I’d been playing all my life without ever fully understanding it.”
The universe he experienced during his coma, the same one described in different ways by Jesus and Albert Einstein, was dominated by God’s unconditional love. The one place where people embraced his story, Alexander reports, is the church. Christians celebrated his conclusion that “we are loved and accepted unconditionally” by a “grand and unfathomably glorious” God.
Alexander emphasizes that he is still a neurosurgeon and a man of science, but he has been fundamentally changed. His life goal is now to help explain a new picture of reality which will show that the universe is “evolving, multi-dimensional, and completely known by a God who cares for us ... deeply and fiercely.” Alexander has written “Proof of Heaven,” which Simon & Schuster will publish next month, to advance this quest.
Although Alexander’s account has been warmly received in his church, Christians have been among the most vocal critics of NDEs. They complain that many NDEs (like Alexander’s) portray a “magnanimous, understanding, all-loving,” “compassionate being,” who finds no fault with anyone, which clashes with biblical teachings about the nature of God and heaven. Christians also observe that people’s interpretation of their NDEs depended heavily on the concepts of the afterlife that are popular in different eras and cultures. Nevertheless, given the pervasive belief in the afterlife and most people’s desire to go to heaven, many will find Alexander’s account and argument both reassuring and inspiring.

Dr. Gary Scott Smith chairs the history department at Grove City College in Pennsylvania and is a fellow for faith and the presidency with The Center for Vision & Values. He is the author of “Heaven in the American Imagination” (Oxford University Press).

'I’m Your Man: The Life of Leonard Cohen’

Leonard Cohen playing guitar on the well top in the square outside Douskas tavern in Hydra, 1960
Leonard Cohen playing guitar on the well top in the square outside Douskas tavern in Hydra, 1960. Marianne Jensen, later Cohen’s lover and muse, is on the right Photo: Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images
It was a cold grey morning and starting to rain when Leonard Cohen walked down Hampstead High Street, clutching a suitcase and an address. It was just before Christmas 1959 and the windows of the little shops were bright with decorations.
Tired from his long journey, Cohen knocked at the door of a boarding house. But the only thing it could offer was a camp bed in the living-room. Cohen, who always said he had 'a very messianic childhood’, accepted the accommodation and the landlady’s terms: that he get up every morning before the rest of the household, tidy up the room, get in the coal, light a fire and deliver three pages a day of the novel he told her he’d come to London to write.
Mrs Pullman ran a tight ship. Cohen, with his liking for neatness and order, happily accepted his duties. He had a wash and a shave then went out to buy a typewriter, a green Olivetti, on which to write his masterpiece. On the way he stopped in at Burberry on Regent Street and bought a blue raincoat. The dismal English weather failed to depress him. Everything was as it should be; he was a writer in a country where, unlike Canada, there were writers stretching back for ever: Shakespeare, Milton, Wordsworth, Keats. Keats’s house, where he wrote Ode to a Nightingale, was 10 minutes’ walk from the boarding house. Cohen felt at home.
Despite its proximity to central London, Hampstead had the air of a village – a village that crawled with writers and thinkers. Among the permanent residents in Highgate Cemetery, a short walk away, were Karl Marx, Christina Rossetti, George Eliot and Radclyffe Hall. When London was shrouded in toxic smog, Hampstead, high on a hill, drew consumptive poets and sensitive artists with its cleaner air.
Cohen’s friend Mort Rosengarten had been the first of Cohen’s crowd to stay there, renting a room from Jake and Stella Pullman while at art school. Next was Nancy Bacal, who had gone to London to study classical theatre and stayed on to become a radio and television journalist. Bacal, like Cohen, had been given the 'starter bed’ and a hot-water bottle in the living-room, until Rosengarten moved out, and Mrs Pullman, judging her worthy, allowed her to take over his room. Which is where she was when Cohen showed up in December 1959.
Bacal, a writer and teacher of writing, cannot remember a time when she did not know Cohen. Like him, she was born and raised in the Westmount area of Montreal. They lived on the same street and went to the same Hebrew and high schools; her father was Cohen’s paediatrician.
'It was a very strong community, inbred in many ways, but in no way was he the usual person you’d find in the Westmount crowd. He was reading and writing poetry when people were more interested in who they were going to date for their Sunday school graduation. He pushed the borders from a very early age.’ She recalls the endless talks she and Cohen would have in their youth about their community, 'what was comfortable, where it left us wanting, where we felt people weren’t penetrating to the truth.’ Their conversation had taken a break when Bacal left for London, but when Cohen moved into the Pullmans’ house, it picked up where it had left off.
Stella Pullman, unlike most residents of Hampstead, was working class – 'salt of the earth, very pragmatic, down-to-earth English’ is Bacal’s description. 'She worked at an Irish dentist’s in the East End of London; took the Tube there every day. Everyone who lived in the house used to schlep down there once a year and have their fillings done. She was very supportive – Cohen still credits her with being responsible for him finishing the book because she gave him a deadline, which made it happen – but she was not what you’d call impressed by him, or by any of us. “Everyone has a book in them,” she’d say, “so get on with it. I don’t want you just hanging around.” She’d been through the war; she had no time for all that nonsense. Cohen was very comfortable there because there was no artifice about it. He and Stella got along very, very well. Stella liked him a lot – but secretly; she never wanted anyone to get, as she would say, “too full of themselves”.’
Cohen kept to his part of the agreement and wrote the required three pages a day of the novel he had begun to refer to as 'Beauty at Close Quarters’. In March 1960, three months after his arrival, he had completed a first draft.

Leonard Cohen at Mrs Pullman’s boarding house in Hampstead, 1960 (Courtesy Leonard Cohen)
Late at night, after closing time at the King William IV, their local pub, Bacal and Cohen would explore London together. 'To be in London in those times was a revelation. It was another culture, a kind of no-man’s-land between the Second World War and the Beatles. It was dark, there wasn’t much money and it was something we’d never experienced, the London working class – and don’t forget we’d started with Pete Seeger and all those working-man songs. We’d start out at one or two in the morning and wander way out to the East End and hang out with guys in caps with cockney accents. We’d visit the night people in rough little places, having tea. We both loved the street life, street food, street activity, street manners and rituals’ – all the things Cohen had been drawn to in Montreal. 'If you want to find Cohen,’ Bacal says, 'go to some little coffee bar or hole in the wall. Once he finds a place, that’s where he’ll go every night. He wasn’t interested in what was “happening”; he was interested in finding out what lay underneath it.’
Through her broadcast work Bacal became fam-iliar with London’s West Indian community, and started to frequent a cellar club on Wardour Street in Soho, the Flamingo. On Friday nights, after hours, it transformed into a club-within-a-club called the All-Nighter. It began at midnight, although anyone who was anyone knew it did not get going until 2am. 'It was, theoretically, a very dodgy place but it was actually magical,’ Bacal says. 'There was so much weed in the air it was like walking into a painting of smoke.’ The music was good – calypso and white R&B-jazz acts such as Zoot Money and Georgie Fame and the Blue Flames – and the crowd was fascinating. Quite unusually for the time, it was 50 per cent black – Afro-Caribbeans and a handful of African American GIs – the white half made up of mobsters, hookers and hipsters.
Cohen loved the place. He wrote to his sister Esther, 'It’s the first time I’ve really enjoyed dancing. I sometimes even forget I belong to an inferior race. The Twist is the greatest ritual since circumcision – and there you can choose between the genius of two cultures. Myself I prefer the Twist.’
With the first draft of his novel finished, Cohen turned his attention to his second volume of poems. He had gathered the poems for The Spice-Box of Earth the year before and had given it to the Canadian publisher McClelland & Stewart, hand-ing his manuscript to Jack McClelland in person. McClelland had taken over his father’s company in 1946 at the age of 24 and was, according to the writer Margaret Atwood, 'a pioneer in Canadian publishing’. So impressed was McClelland by Cohen that he accepted his book on the spot.
Poets are not especially known for their salesman skills, but Cohen worked his book like a pro. He instructed the publisher how it should be packaged and marketed. Instead of the usual slim hardback that poetry tended to come in – which was nice for pressing flowers in, but expensive to print and therefore buy – his should be a cheap, colourful paperback. 'I want an audience,’ he wrote to McClelland. 'I am not interested in the Academy.’ He wanted to make his work accessible to 'inner-directed adolescents, lovers in all degrees of anguish, disappointed Platonists, pornography-peepers, hair-handed monks and Popists, French-Canadian intellectuals, unpublished writers, curious musicians etc, all that holy following of my Art’. In all, a pretty astute, and remarkably enduring, inventory of his fan base.
Cohen was sent a list of revisions and edits and given a tentative publication date of March 1960, but the date passed. In the same month, he was walking to the Tube station from the dental surgery where Mrs Pullman worked, where he had just had a wisdom tooth pulled. It was raining – Cohen would say 'it rained almost every day in London’, which sounds about right – but that day it rained even more heavily than usual, that cold, sideways, winter rain in which England specialises. He took shelter in a nearby building, which turned out to be a branch of the Bank of Greece. Cohen could not fail to notice that the teller wore a pair of sunglasses and had a tan. The man told Cohen that he was Greek and had recently been home; the weather, he said, was lovely there at this time of year.
There was nothing to keep Cohen in London. He had no project to complete or promote, which left him not only free, but also vulnerable to the depression that the short, dark days of a London winter are so good at inducing. On Hampstead High Street he stopped in at a travel agent’s and bought tickets to Israel and Greece.
He had no problem with leaving one place and moving to another – he travelled light and wasted little time on sentimentality. But wherever he lived, he liked to surround himself with fellow thinkers: people who could hold a conversation, hold a drink and knew how to hold their silence when he needed to be left alone to write. An acquaintance in London, Jacob Rothschild, whom he had met at a party, had talked about a small Greek island named Hydra. Rothschild’s mother, Barbara Hutchinson, was about to be remarried to a celebrated Greek painter, Nikos Hadjikyriakos-Ghikas, who had a mansion there. Rothschild suggested that Cohen go and visit them. The island’s small population included artists and writers from around the globe. Henry Miller had lived there at the start of the Second World War and written in The Colossus of Maroussi about its 'wild and naked perfection’.
After leaving London, Cohen stopped first in Jerusalem. It was his first time in Israel. By day he toured the ancient sites and at night he sat in the Café Kasit, the haunt of 'everybody that thought they were a writer’. After a few days, Cohen took the plane to Athens. He stayed in the city one day, during which he saw the Acropolis. In the evening he took a cab to Piraeus and checked into a hotel down by the docks. Early the next morning, Cohen boarded a ferry to Hydra.
In 1960, before there were hydrofoils, it was a five-hour journey. But there was a bar on board. Cohen took his drink up on deck and sat in the sun, staring out at the rumpled blue sheet of sea, the smooth blue blanket of sky, as the ferry chugged slowly past the islands scattered like a broken necklace across the Aegean.

As soon as he set eyes on Hydra, before the ferry even entered the port, Cohen liked it. Everything about it looked right: the natural, horseshoe-shaped harbour, the whitewashed buildings on the steep hills surrounding it. When he took off his sunglasses and squinted into the sun, the island looked like a Greek amphitheatre, its houses like white-clad elders sitting upright in the tiers.
The doors of the houses all faced down to the port, which was the stage, on which a very ordinary drama unfolded: boats bobbing lazily on the water, cats sleeping on the rocks, young men unloading the day’s catch of fish and sponges, old men tanned like leather sitting outside the bars arguing and talking. When Cohen walked through the town, he noticed that there were no cars. Instead there were donkeys, with baskets hung on either side, lumbering up and down the steep cobblestone streets between the port and the Monastery of the Prophet Elijah. It might have been an illustration from a children’s Bible.
The place appeared to have been organised according to some ancient ideal of harmony, symmetry and simplicity. The island had only one real town, named simply Hydra Town. Its inhabitants had come to a tacit decision that two basic colours would suffice – blue (the sea and the sky) and white (the houses, the sails and the seagulls circling over the fishing boats). 'I really did feel I’d come home,’ Cohen said later. 'I felt the village life was familiar, although I’d had no experience with village life.’ What might have also given Hydra its feeling of familiarity was that it was the nearest thing Cohen had experienced to the Utopia he and Rosengarten used to discuss as boys in urban Montreal. It was sunny and warm and it was populated by writers, artists and thinkers from around the world.
The village chiefs of the expat community were George Johnston and Charmian Clift. Johnston, 48 years old, was a handsome Australian journalist who had been a correspondent during the Second World War. Charmian, 37, also a journalist, was his attractive second wife. Both had written books and wanted to devote themselves to writing full-time. The fact that they had children necessitated finding a place to live where life was cheap but congenial. They discovered Hydra in 1954. The couple were great self-mythologisers and natural leaders. They held court at Katsikas’s, a grocery store on the waterfront whose back room, with perfect Hydran simplicity, doubled as a small cafe and bar. The handful of tables outside overlooking the water made the ideal spot for the expats to gather and wait for the ferry, which arrived at noon, bringing the mail – all of them seemed to be waiting for a cheque – and a new batch of people, to watch, to talk to, or to take to bed. On a small island with few telephones and little electricity, therefore no television, the ferry provided their news, their entertainment and their contact with the outside world. Cohen met George and Charmian almost as soon as he arrived.
He was not the first young man they had seen walking from the port carrying a suitcase and a guitar, but they took to him immediately, and he to them. The Johnstons were colourful, charismatic and anti-bourgeois. They had also been doing for years what Cohen had wanted to do, which was live as a writer without the necessity of taking regular work. They had very little money but on Hydra they could get by on it, even with three children to provide for, and the life they were living was by no means impoverished. They lunched on sardines fresh off the boat, washed down with retsina – which old man Katsikas let them put on a tab – and seemed to glow in the warmth and sun. Cohen accepted their invitation to stay the night. The next day they helped him rent one of the many empty houses on the hill, and donated a bed, chair and table and some pots and pans.
Cohen was happy with very little. He thrived in the Mediterranean climate. Every morning he would rise with the sun, just as the local workmen did, and start his work. After a few hours’ writing he would walk down the narrow, winding streets, a towel flung over one shoulder, to swim in the sea. While the sun dried his hair, he walked to the market to buy fresh fruit and vegetables, and climbed back up the hill. It was cool inside the old house. He would sit writing at the Johnstons’ wooden table until it was too dark to see by the kerosene lamps and candles. At night he walked back again to the port, where there was always someone to talk to.
The ritual, routine and sparsity of this life satisfied him immensely. It felt monastic somehow, except that the Hydra arts colony had beaten the hippies to free love by half a decade. Cohen was also a monk who observed the Sabbath. On Friday nights he would light candles and on Saturday, instead of working, he would put on his white suit and go down to the port to have coffee.

Leonard Cohen and Marianne Jensen (Courtesy Leonard Cohen)
One afternoon, towards the end of the long, hot summer, a letter arrived by ferry for Cohen. It told him that his grandmother had died, leaving him $1,500. He already knew what he would do with it. On September 27 1960, days after his 26th birthday, Cohen bought a house on Hydra. It was plain and white, three storeys high, 200 years old, one of a cluster of buildings on the saddle between Hydra Town and the next little village, Kamini. It was a quiet spot, if not entirely private – if he leant out of the window, he could almost touch the house across the alley, and he shared his garden wall with the next-door neighbour.
The house had no electricity, nor even plumbing – a cistern filled in spring when the rains came, and when that ran out he had to wait for the old man who came past his house every few days with a donkey weighted on both sides with containers of water. But the house had thick white walls that kept the heat out in summer, a fireplace for the winter and a large terrace where Cohen smoked, birds sang and cats skulked. A priest blessed the house, holding a burning candle above the front door and making a black cross in soot. An elderly neighbour, Kiria Sophia, came early every morning to wash the dishes, sweep the floors, do the laundry, look after him. Cohen’s new home gave him the pure pleasure of a child.
'One of the things a lot of people haven’t caught,’ Steve Sanfield, a long-time close friend of Cohen, says, 'is really how important those Greece years and the Greek sensibility were to Cohen and his development and the things he carries with him. Cohen likes Greek music and Greek food, he speaks Greek pretty well for a foreigner, and there’s no rushing with Cohen, it’s, “Well, let’s have a cup of coffee and we’ll talk about it.” He and I both carry komboloi – Greek worry beads; only Greek men do that. The beads have nothing to do with religion at all – in fact one of the Ancient Greek meanings of the word is “wisdom beads”, indicating that men once used them to meditate and contemplate.’
Sanfield’s friendship with Cohen began 50 years ago, when Sanfield boarded a ferry in Athens and, on a whim, alighted at Hydra, 'a young poet seeking adventure’. His memories of Hydra are of sun, camaraderie, the voluptuous simplicity of life, and the energy that emanated from its small community of artists and seekers – about 50 in number, although people would come and go. The mainstays, the Johnstons, 'were vital in all of our lives. They fought a lot, they sought revenge on each other a lot with their sexuality, and things got very complicated, but they were really the centre of foreign life in the port.’ Among the other residents were Anthony Kingsmill, a British painter, raconteur and bon vivant to whom Cohen became close; Gordon Merrick, a former Broadway actor and reporter whose first novel, The Strumpet Wind, about a gay American spy, was published in 1947; and Dr Sheldon Cholst, an American poet, artist, radical and psychiatrist who set his flag somewhere between Timothy Leary and RD Laing.
'A lot of people came through in those early years,’ Sanfield says, 'like Allen Ginsberg and Gregory Corso,’ the latter of whom was living on the neighbouring island, coaching a softball team. Cohen met Ginsberg on a trip to Athens. Cohen was drinking coffee in St Agnes Square when he spotted the poet at another table. 'I went up to him asked him if he was indeed Allen Ginsberg, and he came over and sat down with me and then he stayed in my house on Hydra, and we became friends. He introduced me to Corso,’ Cohen said, 'and my association with the Beats became a little more intimate.’ Hydra in the early 1960s was according to Sanfield, 'a golden age of artists. We weren’t beatniks, and hippies hadn’t been invented yet, and we thought of ourselves as kind of international bohemians or travellers, because people came together from all over the world with an artistic intent. There was an atmosphere there that was very exciting.’
Another expat islander who played a part in Cohen’s life was Axel Jensen. A lean, intense Norwegian writer in his late 20s, he had published three novels, one of which became a film. The house where Jensen lived with his wife, Marianne, and their young child, also named Axel, was at the top of Cohen’s hill. Sanfield stayed in the Jensens’ house when he first arrived on Hydra; the family had rented it out while they were away. Its living-room was carved out of the hillside.
When Marianne came back to the island, her husband was not with her. 'She was the most beautiful woman I’d ever known,’ Sanfield says. 'I was stunned by her beauty and so was everyone else.’ Cohen included. 'She just glowed, this Scandinavian goddess with this little blond-haired boy, and Cohen was this dark Jewish guy. The contrast was striking.’
Cohen had fallen in love with Hydra the moment he saw it. It was a place, he said, where 'everything you saw was beautiful, every corner, every lamp, everything you touched, everything’. The same thing happened when he first saw Marianne. 'Marianne,’ he wrote to his lifelong friend the poet Irving Layton, 'is perfect.’
'It must be very hard to be famous. Everybody wants a bit of you,’ Marianne Ihlen says now with a sigh. There were muses before Marianne in Cohen’s poetry and song and there have been muses since; but if there were a contest, the winner, certainly the people’s choice, would be Marianne. Only two of Cohen’s non-musician lovers have had their photographs on his album sleeves, and Marianne was the first. On the back of Songs from a Room, Cohen’s second album, there she sat, in a plain white room, at his simple wooden writing table, her fingers brushing his typewriter, her head turned to smile shyly at the camera, and wearing nothing but a small white towel.

Leonard Cohen and Marianne Jensen in Hydra’s harbour with George Johnston
and Johnston’s second son, Jason, in 1960 (Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images)

Ihlen, now in her mid-70s, has a kind, round face deeply etched with lines. Like Cohen, she does not enjoy talking about herself but is too considerate to say no. She is as modest and apologetic about her English, which is very good, as she once was about her looks. Despite having been a model, she could never understand why Cohen would say she was the most beautiful woman he’d ever met. At the age of 22, 'blonde, young, naive and in love’, she had to the chagrin of her traditional Oslo family run off with Jensen, travelled around Europe, bought an old Volkswagen in Germany and driven it to Athens.
An old woman invited them to stay and let them leave their car in her overgrown garden while they took a trip around the islands. On the ferry they met a fat, handsome Greek named Papas, who lived in California, where he had a sweets and biscuits company that bore his name. They told him they were looking for an island. 'He told us to get off at the first stop; it was Hydra.’
It was mid-December, cold and raining hard. There was one cafe open at the port and they ran for it. It was neon-lit inside and warmed by a stove in the middle of the room. As they sat shivering beside it, a Greek man who spoke a little English told them of another foreign couple living on the island – George Johnston and Charmian Clift – and offered to take them to their house. And so it all began. Axel and Marianne rented a small house – no electricity, outside lavatory – and stayed, Axel writing, Marianne taking care of him. When the season changed, Hydra came alive with visitors, and the two poor, young, beautiful Norwegians found themselves invited to cocktail parties in the mansions of the rich. 'One of the first people that we met was Aristotle Onassis,’ Ihlen recalls. During their time on Hydra, people of every kind drifted by. And there was Cohen.
Much had happened in Ihlen’s life in the three years between her arrival on Hydra and Cohen’s. Ihlen and Jensen had broken up, made up, then married. They had bought an old white house on top of the hill at the end of the Road to the Wells. When the rains came, the street became a river that rushed like rapids over the cobblestones down to the sea. Her life with Jensen was turbulent. The locals talked about Jensen’s heavy drinking, how, when he was drunk he would climb up the statue in the middle of the port and dive from the top, head first. Marianne, they said, was a hippie and an idealist. She was also pregnant. She went back to Oslo to give birth. When she returned to Hydra with their son, she found Jensen packing, getting ready to leave with an American woman he told his wife he had fallen in love with. In the midst of all this, Cohen showed up.
She was shopping at Katsikas’s when a man in the doorway said, 'Will you come and join us? We’re sitting outside.’ She could not see who it was – he had the sun behind him – but it was a voice, she says, that 'somehow leaves no doubt what he means. It was direct and calm, honest and serious, but at the same time a fantastic sense of humour.’ She came out to find the man sitting at a table with the Johnstons. 'He looked like a gentleman, old-fashioned – but we were both old-fashioned,’ Ihlen says. When she looked at his eyes, she knew she 'had met someone very special. My grandmother said to me, “You are going to meet a man who speaks with a tongue of gold, Marianne.”’
They did not become lovers immediately. 'Though I loved him from the moment we met, it was a beautiful, slow movie.’ They started meeting in the daytime, Cohen, Marianne and little Axel, to go to the beach. Then they would walk back to Cohen’s house, which was closer than her own, for lunch and a nap. While Marianne and the baby slept, Cohen would sit watching them, their bodies sunburnt, their hair white as bone. Sometimes he would read her his poems. In October Marianne told Cohen she was going back to Oslo; her divorce proceedings were under way. Cohen told her he would go with her. The three took the ferry to Athens and picked up her car, and Cohen drove them from Athens to Oslo, more than 2,000 miles.
From Oslo Cohen flew to Montreal. If he were to stay on his Greek island, cheap as it was, he needed more money. From his rented apartment on Mountain Street he wrote to Marianne telling her of all his schemes. He was 'working very hard’, he said, on some television scripts with Irving Layton. 'Irving and I think that with three months of intense work we can make enough to last us at least a year. That gives us nine months for pure poetry.’ As for his second book of poetry, The Spice-Box of Earth, that would be published in the spring. There would be a book tour, too, and he wanted Marianne to come with him. The telegram he sent was short but effective: 'Have a flat. All I need is my woman and her child.’ Marianne packed two suitcases and flew with little Axel to Montreal

Catholic chapel to open near Oklahoma abortion clinic

Catholic chapel to open near Oklahoma abortion clinic



Father M. Price Oswalt, one of the leaders behind the perpetual adoration chapel in Warr Acres, Oklahoma


.- Catholic pro-life advocates in Oklahoma plan to open a perpetual adoration chapel and counseling offices next to an abortion clinic in hopes of serving women in need and ending abortion through prayer.
“We are 20 feet from the abortionist,” Father M. Price Oswalt, a leader of the project, told CNA Oct. 25. “We’re going to have some signs in our windows that say ‘Pregnant? Need help? Come here.’ That will draw people in.”
Fr. Price hopes the adoration chapel will “end abortion through prayerful reflection and prayerful means.”
“It’s the ultimate good right next to the ultimate evil,” he said. “Good will triumph.”
The priest, who is rector of the National Shrine of the Infant Jesus of Prague in Prague, Okla., helped plan the chapel and an attached counseling office with the support of the Holy Innocents Foundation. The chapel’s building is next door to the Warr Acres, Okla. abortion clinic Outpatient Services for Women.
The clinic is one of the three main abortion providers in the state.
Fr. Price emphasized that women considering abortion need help.
“Most of the time those women are in crisis mode,” he said. “They don’t really know what they want. They’ve been talked into an abortion most of the time.
“If they come to us, we can say, ‘we can help you , we can help you find options, we can talk to you, we can be your friend.’”
He said the chapel and the foundation’s counseling staff aim to be “compassionate and loving” and not “in their face.” The center will refer women to the pregnancy center network Birth Choice, which has an office with an ultrasound machine a mile away from the clinic.
The chapel will seat about 50 people. It will have statues of the Virgin Mary, the patron saint of pregnancy St. Gerard and St. Gianna Molla, whom Fr. Price called “the martyr of modern-day motherhood.”
The back of the chapel will have a memorial to the unborn where people can write their name and the name of their children into a book.
Fr. Price rejected one critic’s claim that the chapel will make women feel guilty.
“A chapel can only help the subconscious, and the conscience, come to life,” he said. “When you’re in the presence of God, then the Holy Spirit works on you. He helps convict you of whatever you need to be convicted of.
“Going in front of a building that has a chapel in it may call you in and then God can work as God works,” he said. “But the guilt is from the act that’s been performed. That’s the reality.”
Anyone feeling guilty, he said, should remember “that there’s hope, and that there’s reconciliation with God.”
Confession and Mass will be available at the chapel when a priest is available. Organizers hope to have a continuous prayer presence at the chapel, whose tabernacle is a gift from the Sisters of St. Joseph in LaGrange, Ill.
“Many will be reconciled to the Lord, especially if they’ve already committed abortion, they have one in their past or are contemplating it,” Fr. Price said.
The priest found inspiration in a similar project by Fr. Stephen Imbarrato in the Archdiocese of Santa Fe. In North Dakota, the Diocese of Fargo approved a Catholic chapel across the street from an abortion clinic.
The chapel in Warr Acres is not funded by the archdiocese, but it operates with the permission of Archbishop Paul Coakley. He will celebrate a Mass dedicating the chapel.

Friday 26 October 2012

Silence is the sin

Silence is the sin

Abuse and cover-ups

Colm O’Gorman - 27 October 2012

The focus of the Jimmy Savile affair shifted this week to questioning why the BBC, the press and the Establishment failed to investigate the rumours of his crimes. Here, a survivor of clerical abuse in Ireland highlights how a culture of institutional denial allowed these scandals to go unchecked
I have heard it suggested recently that it was the power of Jimmy Savile’s reputation, his larger-than-life personality, his apparently tireless work for charity and his extensive work with young people that made him invulnerable to suspicion and accusation. But it wasn’t. What made the former BBC presenter Savile so invulnerable was the extraordinary determination of so many people to ignore repeated suggestions that he was a serial sexual predator. It’s not that no one knew, it’s that so many didn’t want to know.

We are not talking here about occasional, isolated rumours spoken in hushed tones and never publicly voiced. The suspicions about Savile were explored on numerous occasions by sections of the media; the allegation that he had a sexual interest in young girls was put directly to him by journalists on a number of occasions. Writing in The Independent on the occasion of Savile’s knighthood in 1990, Lynn Barber reported that she had put the rumours directly to him. He, of course, denied them. But the fact that the allegations were put to him, and his denial of them publicly reported, speaks to the extent of the knowledge of the rumours.

This raises very critical questions. First, and perhaps most importantly, given the fact that the rumours about Savile had been so widely circulated that Barber felt able to put them directly to him, why were they not thoroughly investigated in advance of him being awarded his knighthood? That failure resulted in Savile receiving the honour – a royal seal of approval for a man now widely accepted to have been a serious sexual predator. The award made him even more immune to scrutiny, arguably granting him still greater licence to continue his criminal assaults. Savile was granted a papal knighthood that same year. Such plaudits and his celebrity status, combined with his reputation for charitable works, made him a public hero, a national treasure.

In her piece in The Independent, Barber wrote: “There has been a persistent rumour about him for years, and journalists have often told me as a fact: ‘Jimmy Savile? Of course, you know he’s into little girls.’ But if they know it, why haven’t they published it? The Sun or the News of the World would hardly refuse the chance of featuring a Jimmy Savile sex scandal. It is very, very hard to prove a negative, but the fact that the tabloids have never come up with a scintilla of evidence against Jimmy Savile is as near proof as you can ever get.”

But refuse it they did, and not just the tabloids but the entire British media, press and broadcast alike. The only media examin­ation of the widespread suggestions that Savile was sexually assaulting adolescent girls was in a handful of interviews where he denied the accusations in an offhand manner and that was it, case closed. The failure of so many powerful institutions, including the Government, to investigate what was serious criminal behaviour granted Savile even greater licence to abuse with impunity. He was untouchable, not because he was especially devious or clever, but because those who had some responsibility to act on rumour, suspicion or allegation failed to do so.

There are obvious parallels with other such episodes, the most evident being the child-abuse scandals that have engulfed the Catholic Church for much of the past two decades. The BBC was centrally involved in investigating and reporting the crimes of the Church. I myself made three investigative documentary films with the BBC which dealt with such abuse. It is a shame that the corporation was not equally courageous in reporting the crimes of one of its own.

What both scandals reveal is that powerful institutions rarely cast an objectively critical eye inwards. Power rarely subjects itself to honest and open scrutiny, and when it either discovers serious wrongdoing within its own ranks, or indeed is itself guilty of wrongdoing, it often acts to cover up such corruption in an effort to protect its reputation and its authority.

Such wilful blindness creates monsters. The crimes of child abusers like Savile and paedophile priests are only possible within a culture of silence and denial. It has often been said that those who sexually abuse children rely upon secrecy, that sexual abuse is possible because it is a secret crime and that its victims are silent and voiceless. Surely, we need to question that view. What the abuse scandals in the Church, and now with Jimmy Savile, reveal is that secrecy is not the enabler of such crimes but rather silence is; the silence of those who shared rumour and gossip but who failed to act to protect desperately vulnerable children and young people.

When we trace the “careers” of serial abusers like Savile, or Fr Seán Fortune, who abused me when I was a teenager in Ireland, we see that as their crimes were ignored by those in authority, so their offending became more brazen. Complaints of Fortune’s sexual abuse of young boys was first reported to his superiors when he was a seminarian. Despite that, he was ordained a priest and continued to abuse with increasing depravity and
violence. Over the course of the 18 years that followed, repeated complaints were made to church authorities – including to the Vatican – about his abusive behaviour.

Fortune became renowned for his work with young people in the village of Fethard-on-Sea, in County Wexford. A larger-than-life character, he pressured villagers for donations for his “youth groups” and other suspect causes. It is also believed that he extorted large amounts of money from government employment schemes. After their complaints of abuse were ignored, parishioners organised delegations to two bishops and wrote to the papal nuncio. Bishop Brendan Comiskey ­eventually sent Fortune to London to study media and communications, and under that cover to seek therapy with a number of ­psychiatrists.

Yet when Fortune returned to Ireland two years later, he was made director of a Catholic media organisation, the National Association of Community Broadcasting, and continued to abuse scores of young boys. He was also appointed manager of church-run primary schools, and taught in secondary schools. He was only arrested in 1995 after I had reported him to the Irish police. He killed himself four years later, during the first week of his trial on 66 counts of child sex abuse against eight boys, the charges relating to serious sexual assaults and rape.

Fortune abused hundreds of boys, his crimes becoming more horrific as it became clear that no one would step in and stop him. I honestly believe he would never have abused with such depravity and on such a scale, had he not been both empowered and emboldened by the wilful blindness of his superiors.

Like Fortune, Savile was brazen, and he had cause to be. Despite all the rumours and gossip, he was free to carry on abusing. Earlier this month, the Metropolitan Police launched a criminal investigation into his alleged offences; this week it said it was following up 400 lines of inquiry involving 200 potential victims. But Savile died without ever having to face the consequences of his actions and without a single one of his victims achieving justice and seeing him brought before the courts. He got away with it all, scot-free.

Back in 2001, in an interview with an Irish journalist, Joe Jackson, Savile was again questioned about the ­stories circulating of his sexual abuse. Was he “into little girls”? In response, he referred to an earlier interview he had done with psychiatrist and broadcaster Anthony Clare. “Anthony Clare asked me my feelings towards children and I said, ‘I couldn’t eat a whole one … I hate them’, but that, too, is because I want to shut up someone who’s trying to go down that dirty, sordid road with questions like that.” Jackson went on to ask him what, if after he dies, all these rumours, or similar stories, were to form part of his legacy? “Bollix to my legacy. If I’m gone, that’s that,” replied Savile.

Well, now he is dead and gone, and he will never face proper accountability for his crimes. But at least no one can say any more that his victims are silent. Finally, after all these years, their voices have been heard, because finally, we have decided to listen.

* Colm O’Gorman is founder and former director of One in Four, a non-governmental organisation that supports women and men who have experienced sexual abuse, and author of the memoir Beyond Belief.

'Setting the Record Straight' on Jack Kerouac

 
'Setting the Record Straight' on Jack Kerouac
 
 
'The Voice Is All: The Lonely Victory of Jack Kerouac' by Joyce JohnsonJoyce Johnson's long history with Jack Kerouac goes back to 1956, when the poet Allen Ginsberg brought them together for a blind date. She was in her early 20s at the time and already a writer herself. Their meeting sparked a two-year love affair. She was with him the night in 1957 when the New York Times' review of his break-out novel "On the Road" hit the newsstands. They read it together by the light of a street lamp on the way back to her apartment. The next day, "he woke up famous," she later wrote in her 1983 book "Minor Characters," which won the National Book Critics Circle Award.
Johnson has published eight books, and her latest is titled "The Voice Is All: The Lonely Victory of Jack Kerouac." In it, Johnson, who has expressed frustration with biographers who rely exclusively on interviews with his family and friends, draws heavily from Kerouac's own journals, letters and other source material, which are now archived at the New York Public Library. The result is a unique exploration of his childhood, youth and early adulthood, concluding with the publication of "On the Road," the place many other studies begin.
Among Johnson's revelations: Kerouac's French-Canadian background and the fact that French was his first language played major roles in shaping the way he thought and expressed himself. In an interview with Art Beat, she described some of her research and writing process.
Why did you write this book? You covered your own relationship with Kerouac in your memoir "Minor Characters." What keeps drawing you back to the subject?
JOYCE JOHNSON: Over the years I began to learn more and more about Jack as different books kept coming out, other biographies, also books of his letters, early writings. So I began to get a much deeper picture of him than I had when I wrote "Minor Characters," which is all from the point of view I had of him when I was a 21-year-old kid. I also felt very dissatisfied with the way that he was being presented in most of the biographies. I didn't find in those biographies the person that I knew or learn very much about the development of his writing. I also felt as time went on and I kept being dissatisfied by different books and the Kerouac legend seemed set in cement that I had been there at this very crucial moment in 1957. I had known Jack. I had seen the tremendous impact of the whole idea of the Beat Generation upon American culture, and I felt that as a kind of witness to this sort of extraordinary moment I had an obligation to somehow set the record straight.
What did you learn that was new to you? And where there surprises?
JOYCE JOHNSON: When I began the book, I finally had access to the big Kerouac archive, all his private papers that for years no one could even look at. In 2002, they were finally sold to the New York Public Library, the Berg Collection. I wasn't sure at all what was in there, but I had a hunch that if I read those papers I would find a lot of material about what interested me most, which is [Kerouac's] Franco-American background and an account of his development as a writer. I had read some of his journals from the late '40s in which he tracked his developments pretty closely. But I felt that there was more. There were also all his unpublished manuscripts. He was tremendously dedicated to his work. We all have this image of him as someone who sat down and wrote, you know, dashed off "On the Road" in three weeks. But it was actually a book preceded by years of trial attempts at writing other novels with that theme, with some of the same characters. He would ruthlessly put these manuscripts aside. I mean it was the most ruthless and brutal form of revision, spending several months trying to write a novel, and then discarding it. He couldn't find a voice that satisfied him, and that whole struggle is very much documented by all that material in the library.
So his reputation for never revising is false, the whole notion of his "bop prosody"?
JOYCE JOHNSON: Yes, yes. Well, he had learned a way of doing what he called "spontaneous writing." But it wasn't. It was not off the top of his head at all. It was something that took tremendous discipline to bring off. He writes a lot about the process, especially in his journals in 1951. He would get into these states of what he called "transfixations" upon the object, whether he was looking at a scene in a diner or even working from his imagination. After a while it was a sort of very, very deep form of concentration. He would think about the object and all the various associations that rushed into his mind. But it took years of hard work and dedication and self-criticism before he could get to the point where he could do that. If you want to do a high wire act you don't just get out there on the high wire. It's preceded by years of practice. And that was very much a high wire act for Jack, spontaneous writing. So it's been sort of poorly interpreted, I think, by people. It wasn't easy.
You see his Franco-American upbringing and the fact that English was his second language as having a huge influence on Kerouac's thinking and his writing process. And yet the contradiction is, of course, that we consider him to be a definingly American literary voice and think of his work as being built around his quest to find an authentic America after WWII.
JOYCE JOHNSON: Well, I think that's terribly American don't you? Don't you think that's very much in the American grain, all these people from immigrant groups who've come here, who have their [own] languages and their cultures? I think a lot of people, not just Jack, wonder how American they really are. It's a sort of anxiety about you not being completely American [or] part of the American experience?
What about the influence his writing had on American culture, particularly after the War? Did he incite through his writing some kind of a cultural shift in the country or was he simply reporting on it?
JOYCE JOHNSON: I think one thing you have to remember about "On the Road" is that it was published about seven years after Jack wrote it. And it was written in 1951. I think if it had been, say, published right after Jack wrote it, it would have been seen as very much a novel about the mood of the post-War period. But somehow when the book came out, people sort of forgot that. It seemed very now, you know what I mean? And people were waiting actually for something to latch onto, and I think there was so much frustration among young people with the repressive mores of the 1950s that the whole idea of the Beat Generation, not only as Jack interpreted, but as it was sort of interpreted by the media, was very attractive to people.
What was it that drew Kerouac and Neal Cassady to one another with such intensity?
JOYCE JOHNSON: Well, I think Jack sort of fell in love with Neal's voice, with the way he talked, which was like riffs upon riffs. I think he was fascinated by that. He also had a whole idealization of the American West, and Neal seemed to him like the consummate Westerner. I also think he identified with Neal because Neal, like him, came from a working class background. And the scene Jack was in in New York at that time, you know, all his friends were were middle class or even upper-middle class young men. Very brilliant young men, but no one had come from a kind of working class, poor background. So he very much felt that he and Neal had had similar backgrounds.
And Cassady had this magnetic effect on many people.
JOYCE JOHNSON: On many people, he had a tremendous amount of charisma.
And yet he also had--and you write about this--this kind of low-life quality. Was that a conflict for Kerouac ever?
JOYCE JOHNSON: You have to remember that Kerouac was always split. Part of him remained conservative Franco-American, and the other part of him was the wild bohemian part, attracted to people like Neal. One would be dominant one day, and one would be dominant another day. He was constantly seesawing, I think, between those splits in his character. And he was aware of this duality. I think, for him, "On the Road was really an exploration of his own duality. Neal was almost sort of a part of him, his other self, his more extroverted, wilder self. That was kind of a secret theme of "On the Road."
Kerouac has this reputation, of course, as a traveler and free spirit. You're saying a lot of that's the Cassady side of him. But the other side was a homebody and a lifelong momma's boy.
JOYCE JOHNSON: Yes, but his life with his mother enabled his writing. He would live actually very austerely. This began when he was quite a young guy, in his early 20s. He would just hole up for long periods. He was working on his first novel in a room in his mother's apartment, just working, working, working, working. And then he would take time off and go into the city and see all his friends and drink a lot and try to cram all his living into a few days. Then he'd go back to his work. But the work was always central for him. And in a way he sacrificed everything else to it.
Why is his work not better regarded by the academy? Or is that changing?
JOYCE JOHNSON: I think it's changing, but I think there is still a great deal of prejudice and misunderstanding of him. And I think even the whole legend of his writing "On the Road" in only three weeks really worked against him. I think it led somebody like Truman Capote to write, "That isn't writing, it's typing." I still see people saying he typed up "On the Road" in only three weeks. But it was writing. And another thing that I think hasn't been very well understood [is that] it was very much a novel. The Neal Cassady in there sounded like Neal. He really caught the way Neal spoke. But a lot of the things that Neal said were Jack's thoughts put into Neal's mouth. He created a much more mythic figure out of Neal than Neal actually was.
So what is Kerouac's legacy to us today?
JOYCE JOHNSON: I think it's a legacy of terrific, extraordinarily beautiful prose. I think that's the part of him that's going to last. His work is so alive on the page, it just quivers with life. It's so full of music and mood changes. It's like he's in the room with you. He has an immediacy that a lot of other writing doesn't have.