Monday 29 February 2016

COME ON ST JOHN'S OXFORD!






COME ON ST JOHN'S OXFORD!

(Distinguished alumnus GENE  1975 -1978)


University Challenge 2015–16

   
Series 45 of University Challenge began on 13 July 2015 on BBC Two.[1]


  • Winning teams are highlighted in bold.
  • Teams with green scores (winners) returned in the next round, while those with red scores (losers) were eliminated.
  • Teams with orange scores had to win one more match to return in the next round (current highest scoring losers, teams that won their first quarter-final match, teams that won their second quarter-final match having lost their first, or teams that won their first quarter-final match and lost their second).
  • Teams with yellow scores indicate that two further matches had to be played and won (teams that lost their first quarter-final match).
  • A score in italics indicates a match decided on a tie-breaker question.

First Round

Team 1ScoreTeam 2TotalBroadcast date
University of Glasgow155185Peterhouse, Cambridge34013 July 2015
University of Liverpool205130St Peter's College, Oxford33520 July 2015
University of Kent115160Newcastle University27527 July 2015
University of Manchester90265University of York3553 August 2015
University of Nottingham135110Swansea University24510 August 2015
Institute of Cancer Research70190St George's, University of London26017 August 2015
Christ's College, Cambridge20560Kellogg College, Oxford26524 August 2015
University of Sussex125195Queen's University Belfast32031 August 2015
King's College, Cambridge60195Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge2557 September 2015
University of Reading110285Imperial College London39514 September 2015
St Catharine's College, Cambridge165135University of Southampton30021 September 2015
Clare College, Cambridge100195University of Warwick29528 September 2015
Queen Mary University of London130165Nuffield College, Oxford2955 October 2015
St John's College, Oxford255125University of Bristol38012 October 2015

Highest Scoring Losers Play-Offs[edit]

Team 1ScoreTeam 2TotalBroadcast Date
St Peter's College, Oxford120180University of Glasgow30019 October 2015
University of Southampton235120Queen Mary University of London35526 October 2015

Second Round[edit]

Team 1ScoreTeam 2TotalBroadcast date
Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge75305Imperial College London3802 November 2015
University of Warwick120160Nuffield College, Oxford2809 November 2015
University of Glasgow135175Newcastle University31016 November 2015
University of Southampton155190University of Liverpool34523 November 2015
Christ's College, Cambridge120225University of York34530 November 2015
St George's, University of London90195Peterhouse, Cambridge2857 December 2015
University of Nottingham120210St Catharine's College, Cambridge3304 January 2016
St John's College, Oxford180100Queen's University Belfast28011 January 2016

Quarter Finals[edit]

Team 1ScoreTeam 2TotalBroadcast date
University of York165185Peterhouse, Cambridge35018 January 2016
St Catharine's College, Cambridge170175St John's College, Oxford34525 January 2016
Imperial College London19085Nuffield College, Oxford2751 February 2016
Newcastle University150190University of Liverpool3408 February 2016
St John's College, Oxford150195Peterhouse, Cambridge34522 February 2016
St Catharine's College, Cambridge115180University of York29529 February 2016








I did like this cutie from Peterhouse College, Cambridge!!!  - even though, clever girl that she is, she was responsible for St John's losing to Peterhouse.

Sunday 28 February 2016

What’s so dangerous about this book about the Church of England?

What’s so dangerous about this book about the Church of England?

The publishers have asked for all review copies of That Was the Church That Was to be returned




The decline of the Church of England has been one of the most astonishing trends in modern Britain. The pews of churches in this country are emptying fast. Next week, a book was to be published about this collapse entitled That Was The Church That Was: How the Church of England Lost the English People. But suddenly the publishers, Bloomsbury, decided to pull it. The book, it seemed, was a little too incendiary.
Those reviewing the book received a panicky message:Screen Shot 2016-02-04 at 11.10.59 ‘Following the receipt of a legal complaint, Bloomsbury are recalling all review copies of this book and ask you to immediately return the copy received…’. Apparently there has been a legal action because of ‘a disputed passage about a Christian leader’. It sounded intriguing. But which leader? I have a finished copy of the book in front of me, and it’s hard to guess.
Is it the bishop who, we’re informed, ‘turned out to have had a conviction for cottaging hushed up’? Or the bishop who was the subject of an ‘entirely false’ rumour that he ‘attended gay orgies’? Or the bishop accused of faking his academic qualifications, also described as an ‘entirely false’ claim? It may be none of the above. We learn something extraordinary (and, perhaps, defamatory) about a member of the Church of England hierarchy on virtually every page. Ostensibly an account of the Church of England’s decline over the past 30 years, the book reads more like a compendium of its most malicious gossip.
I speak with some experience. In the early 1990s, as religious affairs correspondent of the Daily Telegraph, I wrote some awfully spiteful stuff. I wince when I read it today. But even I could not reach the sadistic heights of That Was The Church That Was. The authors are Linda Woodhead, a socio-logist of religion, and Andrew Brown, who writes about religion for the Guardian. He lived in Sweden for some years, and parts of this book are as nasty as any Scandinavian thriller.
The best thing in the book is its portrait of Rowan Williams. The former Archbishop of Canterbury emerges as a high-church Welsh mystic who felt more at home in Narnia than in England, where village fetes were more sacred than Holy Communion. We read that he ‘had no glib answers to the problems of human tragedy and suffering’ — or to any problem, for that matter. He expected his bishops to ‘worry at the truth like patient followers of Wittgenstein’. Instead, they kicked him around because they knew he could be bullied.

That became clear when, having encouraged his celibate gay friend Canon Jeffrey John to accept the post of Bishop of Reading, he then forced him to withdraw his acceptance in order to placate homophobic African bishops. The book quotes an anonymous bishop, who says the Primate of All England fell into a deep depression because he couldn’t reconcile this with his self-image as a saint and scholar: ‘He couldn’t be a shit — and yet he had been one.’
The mischievous treatment of Anglican politics in the style of Hunter S. Thompson’s Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail is surely the work of Brown rather than the plodding Woodhead. The problem is that, frequently, mischief turns into malice. We’re informed that the late Sir Derek Pattinson, for many years secretary general of the General Synod, ‘once took a woman journalist to a leather bar for an interview’. This may or may not be true. I won’t take the book’s word for it, because when it covers the one gay Anglican scandal I do know about, important details are wrong.
In 1989, my friend Canon Brian Brindley, the grandly eccentric vicar of Holy Trinity, Reading, was secretly tape-recorded fantasising about boys by the News of the World. The recordings were made in his vicarage — not the Athenaeum Club, as the book claims. Brindley inevitably lost his job. As a result of his harsh treatment by the authorities, we learn, the unnamed right-wing -Catholic -religious correspondent of the Daily Telegraph, ‘also gay’, came to ‘loathe’ the Church of England.
That’s news to me (and it is me they are talking about). I didn’t loathe the C of E and was touched by the support Brian received from senior clergy after his disgrace. As for the gay thing, it was Brown who casually ‘outed’ me many years ago.
But if you have a creepy obsession with closeted gays, you really need to get your facts right. A little example: Brian Brindley famously dropped dead in the middle of a dinner party to celebrate his 70th birthday in 2001. ‘All the guests were male and — Andrew was told by one of them — all gay,’ says the book. I was there and they weren’t.
The book blames many of the problems of the Church of England on the ‘managerial voodoo’ introduced by George Carey. ‘Like a cargo cult, [the Church] assumed that if you aped the jargon and waved some of the symbols, success and prestige must naturally follow,’ we’re told.
I don’t know which author came up with this silly analogy, but the more theoretical passages are the work of Linda Woodhead and, it must be said, embarrassingly incoherent. Her academic eminence has always been a bit of mystery. According to her Wikipedia entry, it has been acquired ‘without earning a postgraduate academic qualification’.
That Was The Church That Was tells us something important about English Christianity, but not what the authors imagine. It is the sort of scandal-obsessed diatribe that dying religious communities — one thinks of the Catholic Church in Italy or Ireland — are too weak and compromised to fend off. For the time being, the Church of England is being protected from this atrocious book by somebody’s lawyers. But for how long?

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Church of England is in trouble, but its pews are not emptying at 10,000 a week an earlier version of this story said: this error was introduced at the editing stage. Damian Thompson would never have made such an error. Read his full account of the precise speed of Christian decline in England, here.

No last rites for Catholics who seek assisted suicide, says archbishop. BRAVO! says Gene.

No last rites for Catholics who seek assisted suicide, says archbishop. BRAVO! says Gene.



Activists protest against euthanasia in Belgium, where the Church faces similar challenges to Canada (CNS)
Those seeking to end their lives lack 'the proper disposition for the anointing of the sick'
A Canadian archbishop has warned Catholics that they will be barred from receiving the last rites of the Church if they seek to end their lives by euthanasia or assisted suicide under their country’s new law.
Archbishop Terrence Prendergast of Ottawa reminded worshippers that an act of suicide is a “grave sin” which directly contradicted the Fifth Commandment not to kill.
He told Canadian Catholic News that it would be dishonest for the Church to anoint people bent on committing such a sin and also unfair to any priest asked to confer the Sacrament of the Sick in such circumstances.
Any person who seeks to kill themselves “lacks the proper disposition for the anointing of the sick”, he said.
“Asking to be killed is gravely disordered and is a rejection of the hope that the rite calls for and tries to bring into the situation,” he continued.
“Asking your priest to be present to something that is in direct contradiction to our Catholic values is not fair to the pastor,” the archbishop added.
“Of course a pastor will try to dissuade a patient from requesting suicide and will pray with them and their family, but asking him to be present is in effect asking him to condone a serious sin.”
Catholics are permitted the Sacrament of the Sick when they are gravely ill, although not necessarily at the point of the death.
During the rite, the person is anointed on the forehead and hands will oil while the priest says: “Through this holy anointing may the Lord in his love and mercy help you with the grace of the Holy Spirit. May the Lord who frees you from sin help you and raise you up.”
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the sacrament confers on the person gifts of the Holy Spirit that include strength, peace and courage, unity with Christ and His Church, and the forgiveness of his or her sins.
The comments of Archbishop Prendergast represent the latest statement of strong opposition to euthanasia by the Canadian Catholic Church.
Canada has been on course for the creation of one of the world’s most permissive euthanasia regimes since the Supreme Court last year ordered the government to legalise euthanasia and assisted suicide.
Canada’s Liberal government has until June to create a framework for such practices and “suicide courts” have been set up to hear applications for euthanasia and assisted suicide during the interim period.
During the consultation period, the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying heard arguments for the establishment of specialist euthanasia clinics in an attempt to keep euthanasia and assisted suicide out of the mainstream of health care.
But the government’s final report, which was published on February 25, announced that all publicly-funded healthcare institutions would be obliged to provide euthanasia and assisted suicide.
If the recommendations of its report, “Medical Assistance in Dying: A Patient-Centred Approach”, are accepted by Parliament, they will cover hospitals, hospices and nursing homes run by the Church.
Doctors will also be denied a right to conscientiously object to involvement in the practices since they will be made to refer people seeking death to practitioners who are known to have no objections.
The law will put the Church on a collision course with the State that is likely to result in the closure or loss of Catholic healthcare institutions.

A similar situation is emerging in Belgium, where euthanasia was legalised in 2003, and where a Catholic care home is being sued for refusing to let a doctor give a woman a lethal injection on Church-run premises.
The test case, which will be heard in April, could determine whether Church-run institutions in Belgium have the right to refuse to be involved in acts of euthanasia.

Archbishop Jozef De Kesel of Brussels has said publicly that no Church-run hospital or care home would permit euthanasia under any circumstance.
ends

Harper Lee deepened our imaginative and spiritual lives

Harper Lee deepened our imaginative and spiritual lives

Harper Lee, who died last week” (AP)
To Kill A Mockingbird is the work of a true artist who gave literary life to the world she saw and experienced
I was debating with an acquaintance the other day what made for a great novel. He thought it meant starting with a powerful idea and then filling it out with characters and plot. I disagreed: what made a novel great was character and place; the ‘theme’ was secondary and a ‘plot’ was optional, though it does help to drive along a narrative. I still think this – especially since last Friday saw the deaths of two celebrated authors, Harper Lee and Umberto Eco, who exemplify my argument.
Here I should say I have never read In the Name of the Rose, Eco’s most famous book, and nothing I have read about it makes me want to. When people discuss it the most they can say is that it is a stimulating/fascinating/gripping medieval mystery thriller, written by a professor of semiotics (a word that few people had heard of until Eco came along, and even fewer understand even now.) Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, published in 1960, is different. It bears out my further contention with the acquaintance referred to above that there is a distinction between a writer and an artist. Some people – mainly writers – will call this a false distinction, but it makes sense to me. Writers use their skills, which are sometimes considerable, merely to practise their craft; artists start out with a vision which then, according to their gifts, they flesh out, in this case in works of fiction.
I am not talking about a spiritual vision obviously, though there is a spiritual quality to a work of art. I am describing an author who has a way of looking at people and life from a humane, generous and perceptive standpoint and who feels compelled to describe the diversity of the persons populating his imagination. It is this largeness of spirit which, allied to a capacity to breathe life into an imaginary character and an imaginary society, makes for a classic novel. It is for this reason that people will remember Dorothea in Middlemarch, Pierre in War and Peace and David Copperfield, with all the heartfelt moral circumstances of their lives, long after the “hero” of Eco’s novel will have been dismissed as a literary construct.
Even though she only wrote one book (the recently published Go Set A Watchman was an earlier draft of To Kill A Mockingbird), Harper Lee occupies a modest but permanent place in the pantheon of artists; that is why her book has been reprinted millions of times and will go on selling. People might sneer that a popular school text, read by 12-year-olds, hardly justifies inclusion among the classics. I would respond that it is just as much a classic as Pride and Prejudice, also read and enjoyed by 12-year-olds. Indeed, when I read that that Lee’s favourite author was Jane Austen, whom she described as “writing, cameo-like in that little corner of the world of hers and making it universal”, I realised that Austen would have been the inspiration behind her own decision to stage her novel and its characters in “Maycomb”, the fictionalised setting for Monroeville in Alabama, where Lee spent almost all her life.
Like Austen’s understanding of provincial society in early 19th-century England, Lee knew her own small world – that of the American South – intimately. Her characters, like Austen’s, were the people she knew, with all their human flaws and failings, and also their nobility. The issues she raises – racial prejudice, the stigma of mental illness, the place of women, the importance of a father’s love and so on – were what she saw and experienced in her own life and as a true artist, she gave shape to them.
The surprise publication of Go Set a Watchman last year and the excitement that accompanied it, gave us a glimpse of the creative process at work, showing how Lee was helped by an excellent editor in Tay Hohoff, but it does not detract from Lee’s achievement, any more than knowing that Ezra Pound persuaded TS Eliot to cut out many lines from his great poem detracts from The Waste Land as we know it.
Critics of Lee’s novel suggest that it sentimentalised the vicious black-white divide in US society and made Americans, wrongly, feel good about themselves in its idealised portrait of Atticus Finch, the lawyer who defended an African American in a courthouse filled with racists. But there is nothing sentimental in the novel, from its portrait of Mrs Dubose and her secret drug addiction, the alcoholism of Mr Dolphus Raymond, to the sequestered life of Boo Radley, the misfit and recluse.
The point of art is to deepen and broaden the reader’s own imaginative and spiritual life. When, for example, Finch tells his son Jem, “I wanted you to see what real courage is, instead of getting the idea that courage is a man with a gun in his hand. It’s when you know you’re licked before you begin but you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what. You rarely win, but sometimes you do. Mrs Dubose won…She was the bravest person I ever knew”, our own capacity for sympathy and understanding has been enlarged. Do Eco’s novels do this? I rest my case.

Thursday 25 February 2016

Heartbreak at Hillingdon High (update)

Heartbreak at Hillingdon High (update)
photo

HEARTBREAK at HILLINGDON HIGH

A sneak preview of the cover of my novel HEARTBREAK at HILLINGDON HIGH. It tells the story of Carol, a stunning blonde teaching in the English department at HH, who falls for Mr X, a handsome, curly-haired Irishman who teaches in the MFL department at this same school. Mr X has soft brown eyes which are Sanpaku and is quite a charmer with a penchant for slip-on shoes with metal buckles and polo-necked jumpers. But Mr X has a dark secret...


EXTRACT:


Deputy Head Michelle Gove strode across the central quadrangle of Hilllingdon High. It was 6. 30am, a beautiful summer morning. A faint breeze wafted across carrying on it the rich tang from the  Grand Union Canal. The breeze dislodged petal blossoms from the flowering cherry trees and they landed in flocculent dustings on the neatly trimmed lawns. The janitor, chirpy Cockney, Nobby Clarkeson, came across from his early morning opening-up doors rounds.

'What a beautiful morning Nobby,' said Michelle, 'I always love this last Friday before the summer mid-term break. It makes one feel there's a God in heaven and that all is well with the world.'

'If you say so Mrs G,' Nobby acquiesced.

'Let's hope the remainder of this term is not disrupted by any more of those public sector strikes,' said Michelle.

'Don't get me started Mrs G,' said Nobby. 'Know what? I would have any teachers who go on strike taken out and shot in front of their forms.'

'Why Nobby that is exactly the view of the SMT in this school!' exclaimed Michelle. 'But have we got a government with the guts to implement such a policy?'

'Have we hell!,' snorted Nobby and disappeared in the direction of the toilets in a jangling of keys.

Michelle carried on across the quadrangle and caught sight of leather-clad Dale 'Larry' Grayson, the Head of Drama, parking his elaborately customized Honda Gold Wing motorcycle in the car park. 'Silly old poseur,' thought Michelle, 'and I don't care much for his pinko liberal politically correct views either.'

Michelle entered the main block and coming from the ajar door of the staffroom she could hear music playing lowly - the Beach Boys singing Sloop John B. Gingerly she pushed the door open and at the far end of the staffroom saw Carol slumped across a table, her blonde hair in disarray and an Ipod player cradled in her arms.

'My God Carol! Have you been here all night?' exclaimed Michelle.

Carol raised her head from the table and looked at Michelle. Carol was devastation personified. In answer to Michelle she handed her a tear-stained letter and said:

'On my way home after the twilight INSET session last night I found this in my pigeon hole. It's from Mr X.'

Michelle read slowly:

THE HEART HAS ITS REASONS WHICH REASON CAN'T FATHOM
                                                                                             Blaise Pascal

My Dearest Carol,                  

Where do I begin?  ...

Michelle finished reading and said to herself, 'I knew those slip-on shoes with buckles and polo-necked jumpers signalled something that would end in tears.'

Michelle had that indefinable feeling that someone else was near. She looked around and standing there was the notorious staffroom gossip, Amelia Wordsworth. 'Oh my God,' thought Michelle, 'this will be all around the school before morning break.'

                                        OH CAROL  ... NEIL SEDAKA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiTtfz2PZJw&feature=related

St Mary's University (where Gene completed his PGCE) opens Benedict XVI centre approved by the Holy See

St Mary's University (where Gene completed his PGCE) opens Benedict XVI centre approved by the Holy See



The university approved the creation of the Centre in 2015, the fifth anniversary of Pope Benedict XVI's historic visit to St Mary's (CNS photo/Paul Haring)
The new centre at St Mary's has the approval of the Vatican's Secretariat of State
St Mary’s University Twickenham has established a “Benedict XVI Centre” for research into religion and social sciences.
On its website St Mary’s said the centre was an “international hub for research and engagement activities in the area of religion and the social sciences (primarily economics, sociology, and political science).” Its director is Dr Stephen Bullivant, who is also a contributing editor of the Catholic Herald.
The university said that the name of the centre had been approved by the Vatican’s Secretariat of State.
The Pope Emeritus visited the university in 2010, leading a “Big Assembly” with 3,500 school children and meeting leaders of different religions.
St Mary’s has also established the “Benedict XVI House”, where a lay community made up of staff and full-time students pursue a life focused on prayer.
The new Benedict XVI centre, according to the website, was “founded upon the conviction that interdisciplinary research, in which the sciences are brought into direct engagement with theology and ethics, is central to the life of a Catholic university (cf. Pope St John Paul II, Ex Corde Ecclesiae, 46).”
One of its first projects is to mark the 50th anniversary of Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae with a book that draws together scholars from different disciplines.
Founded in 1850, St Mary’s was granted the title of university in 2014.

Tuesday 23 February 2016

DETTERS YOUR EARS WILL BE BURNING ON FRIDAY NIGHT

DETTERS YOUR EARS WILL BE BURNING ON FRIDAY NIGHT









We of course  had no Good Yarn session last Friday because of half term. I can't wait for this coming Friday's session. I have a couple of corkers lined up about Detters:


1 Detters is the sort of man who reads the contents of his spam folder!


How we will laugh!


2 Detters is the sort of man who would hang a Jack Vettriano print on his living room wall!


How we will laugh!

Monday 22 February 2016

THE GENE VINCENT ANNUAL LITERARY PRIZE

THE GENE VINCENT ANNUAL LITERARY PRIZE


Neustadt Feather




Stand by for the announcement of a great new literary prize:






This will knock the Man-Booker, Whitbread etc into touch. Open to all, it will take the short story form - entries will be limited to between 3,000 to 5,000 words. Gene Vincent will be the sole judge.


Is this exciting? Or is this exciting?


Stand by for more details


Why Pope Benedict XVI Drank Alcohol With Friends

Why Pope Benedict XVI Drank Alcohol With Friends

 
HE was regarded the first Pope to make his resignation intentions known to the cardinals due to “lack of strength of mind and body.” Pope Benedict XVI made this pronouncement on February 11, 2013, while the resignation proper occurred on February 28, 2013. Other popes before him either resigned or were forced to do so. These include Pope Gregory X11 (1415) and Pope Celestine V (1294).
Though retired, Pope Benedict is still referred to as His Holiness, as he keeps the designation of Pope and still wears the papal colour of white. On March 13, 2013, the current Pope Francis took over office from him, while he moved into the newly renovated monastery, Mater Ecclesiae, before his retirement on May 2, 2013.
Recently, Pope Benedict clocked 88, and to celebrate the occasion, Pope Emeritus organised a cocktail, where invited guests drank beer. This generated some controversy, as some people wondered whether this act is not in direct opposition to Biblical injunction on alcohol. Did they really stray from the Bible’s position on alcohol?
For instance, Leviticus 10:9, says, “Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations…”
Another portion of the Bible (Psalm 104:15) states “…and wine that maketh glad the heart of man…”
On his view on the issue, David John-Iheagwam, a worshipper with one of the largest Pentecostal churches in the country, said:
“I keep asking where in the scriptures it is said that a Christian cannot drink alcohol. But my pastor keeps referring me to the Old Testament, where it is said that you should give strong drink to those who want to die. And I asked him to show me the same thing in the New Testament, where it is stated. What did Jesus Christ say and do concerning alcohol? Jesus Christ drank wine in the Bible.
“The truth is that once church leaders take a particular position on an issue, they start looking for scriptures to back their position. Any scripture that does not support their position is deliberately ignored. They don’t refer to it. And so, if you belong to any of these denominations, you may not know that those aspects of the scripture exist.
“For instance, let me repeat what Jesus Christ said in Matthew 11:18: “For John (talking about John the Baptist) came neither eating nor drinking and they say he has a demon. But the Son of man came, eating and drinking and they say look at “a gluttonous man and winebibber” and elsewhere in Mark it says, “a glutton and drunkard”. Because John neither ate nor drank, what did the people say? “That the man was a demon, a possessed person. He was a mad man, as he didn’t eat, he didn’t drink. Jesus Christ came and was drinking with sinners. And what did they say? That He was a friend of sinners; that He was also a drunkard. Let me tell you, Jesus Christ’s goal was focused on winning souls and reconciling man back to God. He didn’t look down on anybody. If he went to a place, where people were drinking, He would sit with them. He ate and drank, but He was never drunk.
“If you are in doubt, please listen to this: when Apostle Paul was writing to the church in Corinth, he expressed his displeasure with the people there because they were getting drunk with the Communion wine and he cautioned them.
“And you discover that a lot of people like me that attend these churches drink. One of the things I’ve told myself is that I won’t pretend over something I do. There are some pastors and church members that drink secretly. Why should I take beer in the secret and come in the open to condemn it?
“For instance, if my pastor comes to my house and there is also another visitor, I would ask, “sir, what would you like to take? If he says water, I will give him that, and if he says beer and I have beer, I will offer it to him. However, the only thing is that you should never drink to the point of getting drunk. I like holding my own views on issues. And they know me in church that I am like that. I don’t hide my feelings. There are certain issues I don’t agree with the church, though I worship with them.
“What the Bible preaches is moderation; you can only abuse alcohol, when you take it excessively. Some churches believe this, while others are against it. In my church, they know that I don’t speak in tongues and I’m not going to pretend about it. I don’t believe it is compulsory for one to speak in tongues. If you read that scripture very well, it says that as the apostles were speaking in different languages, people around them heard these languages, but is it like that today? Why are those speaking in tongues today not readily understood by other members? If you are speaking in Efik or Ibibio, an Ibibio or Efik brother or sister should hear what you are saying, but it is not like that today. Let us be frank about it. If you speak in tongues and there is no interpreter, how do you edify the people because that is the purpose? The kind of speaking tongues I want are those spoken on the day of Pentecost. You speak a particular language, but you can neither understand nor interpret same; so edifying one another becomes a difficult task. It is better for me to pray in the language that I understand than confuse the congregation.
“That is one of the problems I have with Rev. Chris Okotie. He made a mistake, when he told the world that God told him he was going to be Nigeria’s President. If he had said that God told him that one day he would become president, it would have been better and face-saving. But he was specific and during the election, he got less than 50,000 votes and did not become president. We are now in 2016. So, the question I really ask is: Was it God that really spoke to him?
“Let me conclude with this: one day, something happened to me. I was in my room drinking beer, when one of my children came and said: “Daddy, don’t you want to go to heaven?” I didn’t answer him. Again, he said: “Daddy, you are drinking, don’t you want to go to heaven?” I just laughed over it and he left. Another day, he repeated the same thing: “Daddy, don’t you want to go to heaven?” Then I took time to explain things to him. I asked him: “Do they teach you in the church that a Christian shouldn’t drink beer?” He said ‘yes.’ So, I sat him down and lectured him on what the Bible says concerning alcohol. I told him that the Bible only says that a person shouldn’t get drunk and then asked him, ‘have you ever seen daddy getting drunk?’ He said ‘no’.
“Since then, you cannot tell him anything about beer. I have also made it known that drinking beer is not compulsory. I told him, ‘after all, your mom doesn’t drink; so it is not compulsory. You must not drink. But if you do, just don’t get drunk.’ I also told him that he must be an adult before he starts taking alcohol, if at all he wants to.
“So, let us give the people proper and accurate information. Even the normal food you take, do you know if you eat more than you are supposed to, you start experiencing constipation and things like that,” he queried.
What has a nutritionist and food technology expert, Mrs. Coker Dolapo, got to say about drinking of beer?
“Moderation is the watchword. Moderate intake of beer can positively impact the health and well-being of women.”
She added that though beer is an alcoholic beverage, but it can also be classified as food, because of its nutrient values. She listed these to include: carbohydrates such as dextrins and polysaccharides; proteins in the form of amino acids; load of vitamins comprising the B vitamins, vitamin C and folic acid, among others; such minerals as magnesium, potassium, silicon and selenium among others. Beer also contains such fibre as betaglucans among others.
Source: http://www.thewhistler.ng/story/why-pope-benedict-xvi-drank-alcohol-with-friends

Friday 12 February 2016

Silence in the Liturgy

Silence in the Liturgy

February 10, 2016
It is important to recall that silence is a necessary condition for deep, contemplative prayer, and an important component of the liturgy.
Cardinal Robert Sarah celebrates Mass on January 12, 2011. (CNS photo/Paul Jeffrey)



In an essay published in Italian in L’Osservatore Romano on January 30, 2016, Cardinal Robert Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, discusses the meaning of silence in the Roman liturgy. The following English translation was prepared from the original, unabridged French text.


Many Catholics rightly complain about the absence of silence in some forms of the celebration of our Roman liturgy. It seemed to us important, therefore, in this short essay, to recall the meaning of silence as a Christian ascetical value, and therefore as a necessary condition for deep, contemplative prayer, without forgetting the fact that times of silence are officially prescribed during the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, so as to highlight the importance of silence for a high-quality liturgical renewal.
1. Silence as a Christian ascetical value
In the negative sense, silence is the absence of noise. It can be exterior or interior. Exterior silence involves the absence of sounds both in words and in actions (noises of doors, vehicles, jackhammers, and airplanes, the noisy mechanism of cameras, often accompanied by dazzling flashes, and also of that horrible forest of cell phones that are brandished at arm’s length during our Eucharistic liturgies). Virtuous or mystical silence obviously must be distinguished from reproachful silence, from the refusal to speak to someone, from the silence of omission through cowardice, egotism, or hard-heartedness.
Of course, exterior silence is an ascetical exercise of self-mastery in the use of speech. First of all it may be helpful to recall what asceticism is; this word is not praised to the skies by our consumer society—far from it!—and, we must admit, it frightens our contemporaries, including very often the Christians who are influenced by the spirit of the world. Well, then, what is asceticism? Asceticism is an indispensable means that helps us to remove from our life anything that weighs it down, in other words, anything that hampers our spiritual or interior life and therefore is an obstacle to prayer. Yes, it is indeed in prayer that God communicates his Life to us, in other words, manifests his presence in our soul by irrigating it with the streams of his Trinitarian Love: the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit. And prayer is essentially silence. Chattering, the tendency to externalize all the treasures of the soul by expressing them, is supremely harmful to the spiritual life. Carried away toward the exterior by his need to say everything, the chatterer cannot help being far from God, superficial and incapable of any profound activity.
The wisdom books of the Old Testament (Prov 10:8, 11, 13, 14, 18-21, 31, 32; 15:1-7; Sir 19:7-12; 20:1-2, 5-8 or 23:7-15; 28:13-26) are chock-full of exhortations aimed at avoiding sins of the tongue (in particular, slander and calumny). The prophetic books, for their part, mention silence as the expression of reverential fear of God; it is then a preparation for the theophany of God, in other words, the revelation of His presence in our world (Lam 3:26; Zeph 1:7; Hab 2:20; Is 41:1; Zech 2:13). The New Testament is not outdone in this respect. Indeed, there is the Letter of James, which clearly remains the classic passage about controlling the tongue (Jas 3:1-10). However, we know that Jesus himself warned us against wicked words, which are the expression of a depraved heart (Mt 15:19) and even against idle words, for which an accounting will be demanded of us (Mt 12:36). In contrast, we can only be impressed by the silence of Jesus before the Sanhedrin, the Roman governor Pilate and King Herod: Jesus autem tacebat (Mt 26:63). Herod asked him to work a miracle for him personally, and his courtiers would have been amused by it. But Jesus Christ, who was in chains—he, the God of majesty—did not consent to become the buffoon of King Herod, nor to do for that proud man whose curiosity was unhealthy what he granted so generously to the humble and the uneducated.
In reality, true, good silence always belongs to someone who is willing to let others have his place, and especially the Completely-Other, God. In contrast, external noise characterizes the individual who wants to occupy an over-important place, to strut or to show off, or else who wants to fill his interior emptiness, as is the case in many stores and public facilities, and also particularly in the waiting rooms of some dentists, hairdressers..., where they impose incessant background music on you.
As for interior silence, it can achieved by the absence of memories, plans, interior speech, worries…. Still more important, thanks to an act of the will, it can result from the absence of disordered affections or excessive desires. The Fathers of the Church assign an eminent place to silence in the ascetical life. Think of Saint Ambrose (In psalm. 37, 12-15), Saint Augustine, Saint Gregory the Great (Moralia II, 48; XXII, 16; XXX, 16), not to mention Chapter VI of the Rule of Saint Benedict of Nursia on “taciturnity,” or Chapter 62 on grand silence at night, where he adopts the teaching of Cassian. Starting with those spiritual masters, all the medieval founders of religious orders, followed by the mystics of the Catholic Counter-Reformation, insisted not only on the ascetical but also on the mystical importance of silence.
2. Silence as a condition for contemplative prayer
The Gospels say that the Savior himself prayed in silence, particularly at night (Lk 6:12), or while withdrawing to deserted places (Lk 5:16; Mk 1:35). Silence is typical of the meditation by the Word of God; we find it again particularly in Mary’s attitude toward the mystery of her Son (Lk 2:19, 51). The most silent person in the Gospels is of course Saint Joseph; not a single word of his does the New Testament record for us. Saint Basil considers silence not only as an ascetical necessity of monastic life, but also as a condition for encountering God (Letter 2, 2-6: PG 32, 224-232). Silence precedes and prepares for the privileged moment when we have access to God, who then can speak to us face to face as we would do with a friend (cf. Ex 33:11; Num 12:8; Deut 34:10).
Recall, in this regard, that we arrive at the knowledge of God by way of causality, analogy, eminence, but also negation: once we affirm the divine attributes, which are known by natural reason (this is the kataphatic way), we must deny the mode of limited realization thereof that we know here below (this is the apophatic way). Silence is an essential part of the apophatic way of gaining access to God, which was so highly prized by the Fathers of the Church, especially the Greeks; this makes them demand silence of arguments when faced with the mystery of God (Clement of Alexandria, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa).
It is nonetheless true that silence is above all the positive attitude of someone who prepares to welcome God by listening. Yes, God acts in the silence. Hence this very important remark by the great Saint John of the Cross: “The Father said only one word, namely his Son, and in an eternal silence he always says it: the soul too must hear it in silence.”[1] The Book of Wisdom had already noted in this regard the manner in which God intervened to deliver the chosen people from captivity in Egypt: that unforgettable act took place during the night: “For while gentle silence enveloped all things, and night in its swift course was now half gone, your all-powerful word leaped from heaven, from the royal throne” (Wis 18:14). Later, this verse would be understood by Christian liturgical tradition as a prefiguration of the silent Incarnation of the Eternal Word in the crib in Bethlehem. As for Blessed Elizabeth of the Trinity, she would insist on silence as a condition for contemplating God the Holy Trinity.
And so we have to make silence: this is of course an activity, and not a form of idleness. If our “interior cell phone” is always busy because we are “having a conversation” with other creatures, how can the Creator reach us, how can he “call us”? We must therefore purify our mind of its curiosities, the will of its plans, in order to open ourselves totally to the graces of light and strength that God wants to give us profusely: “Father, not my will, but yours be done.” Ignatian “indifference” is therefore a form of silence too.
3. The silence prescribed by the liturgical norms
Prayer is a conversation, a dialogue with the Triune God: although at some moments we address God, at others we make silence so as to listen to him. It is not surprising therefore that we must consider silence as an important component of the liturgy. Of course the Eastern rites (which are not within the competence of my Congregation) plan no times of silence during the Divine Liturgy. Indeed, when the priest himself does not chant, in other words, when he prays in silence (or “secretly,” which comes from the Latin word: secreto), particularly during the anaphora, i.e., the Eucharistic Prayer, except for the words of consecration, which are chanted aloud, we can note that the deacon, the choirs, or else the faithful chant without interruption. Nevertheless, they are intensely aware of the apophatic dimension of their prayer, which is expressed by all sorts of adjectives and adverbs describing the Supreme Master of the Universe and Savior of our souls. For example, the “preface” of the Byzantine rite says this: “You are God—ineffable, inconceivable, invisible, incomprehensible….” Moreover, in its essentials, the Divine Liturgy is something of a plunge into the “Mystery,” which means, concretely, that it is celebrated behind the iconostas, and the priest, who stands at the altar of Sacrifice, often prays in silence.
In the West, in contrast, in all its rites (Roman, Roman-Lyonese, Carthusian, Dominican, Ambrosian, etc.) the silent prayer of the priest was not ceaselessly accompanied by the chanting of the choir or of the congregation. The Latin Mass therefore has always included times of complete silence. Until the reform of Blessed Pope Paul VI, this was the case especially during the Canon, or Eucharistic Prayer, which was pronounced by the celebrant in silence (secreto), except in the rare cases of sacramental concelebration. It is true that in some places they had tried to fill up the emptiness of this silence lasting several minutes (five to eight at most) which, in reality, was only apparent, by the sound of the organ, or by polyphonic singing, but it must be admitted that this practice was not in keeping with the spirit of these rites.
Vatican Council II prescribed keeping a time of silence during the Eucharistic Sacrifice. Thus the Constitution on the Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium, §30, decreed that “to promote active participation…at the proper time a reverent silence should be observed.” The General Introduction to the Roman Missal (GIRM) of Blessed Pope Paul VI, revised in 2002 by Saint John Paul II, specified the many places in the Mass where it is necessary to observe such silence. We find first of all this general reminder, which explains SC 30 (cited above):
Sacred silence also, as part of the celebration, is to be observed at the designated times (Sacrosanctum Concilium, art. 30; Instruction Musicam sacram, n. 17).[2] Its nature, however, depends on the moment when it occurs in the different parts of the celebration. For in the Penitential Act and again after the invitation to pray, individuals recollect themselves; whereas after a reading or after the Homily, all meditate briefly on what they have heard; then after Communion, they praise God in their hearts and pray to him. Even before the celebration itself, it is a praiseworthy practice for silence to be observed in the church, in the sacristy, in the vesting room, and in adjacent areas, so that all may dispose themselves to carry out the sacred celebration in a devout and fitting manner. (GIRM, no. 45 [formerly 23])
How sad it is—it’s almost a sacrilege—to hear sometimes priests and bishops chattering uninterruptedly in the sacristy, and even during the entrance procession, instead of recollecting themselves and contemplating in silence the mystery of the death of Christ on the Cross that they are getting ready to celebrate, which ought to inspire them with nothing but fear and trembling!
The first moment in particular in which silence is prescribed is the penitential preparation: “The Priest calls upon the whole community to take part in the Penitential Act, which, after a brief pause for silence, it does by means of a formula of general confession” (GIRM, n. 51 [29]). Then, for the collect: “…the Priest calls upon the people to pray and everybody, together with the Priest, observes a brief silence so that they may become aware of being in God’s presence and may call to mind their intentions” (GIRM, n. 54 [32]; cf. n. 127 [88]). Then, “the Liturgy of the Word is to be celebrated in such a way as to favor meditation, and so any kind of haste such as hinders recollection is clearly to be avoided. In the course of it, brief periods of silence are also appropriate, accommodated to the assembled congregation; by means of these, under the action of the Holy Spirit, the Word of God may be grasped by the heart and a response through prayer may be prepared. It may be appropriate to observe such periods of silence, for example, before the Liturgy of the Word itself begins, after the First and Second Reading, and lastly at the conclusion of the Homily” (GIRM, n. 56). Paragraph n. 128 [89] is entirely in keeping with this recommendation for the First Reading, and n. 130 [91] for the Second Reading. This advice applies also to the homily, which must be received and assimilated in an atmosphere of prayer (cf. GIRM, n. 66 [42] and 136 [97]). Finally it becomes a genuine prescription addressed to the faithful for the Eucharistic Prayer, when “the people, for their part, should associate themselves with the priest in faith and in silence…” (GIRM, n. 147 [108]).
We find again the possibility of remaining in silence after Holy Communion (cf. GIRM, n. 164 [121]), or to prepare to listen to the “Postcommunion” prayer (GIRM, n. 165 [122]). In Mass celebrated in the absence of a congregation, a moment of silence is even recommended to the celebrant: “After the purification of the chalice, the Priest should observe a brief pause for silence...” (GIRM, n. 271 [230]).
Silence is therefore not at all absent from the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, at least if we follow its guidelines and celebrate in the spirit of its recommendations. Unfortunately, too often “it was forgotten that the Council also included silence under actuosa participatio, for silence facilitates a really deep, personal participation, allowing us to listen inwardly to the Lord’s word. Many liturgies now lack all trace of this silence.”[3] Moreover, apart from the homily, all other speeches or introductions of persons should be forbidden during the celebration of Holy Mass. Indeed, we have to avoid turning the church, which is the house of God intended for adoration, into a theater in which people come to applaud the actors who are rated according to their ability to communicate, to use an expression that you often hear in the media. Nowadays, you sometimes get the impression that
Catholic worship…has gone from adoration of God to the exhibition of the priest, the ministers, and the faithful. Piety has been abolished, including the word itself, and has been liquidated by liturgists as devotionalism, but they have made the people put up with liturgical experiments and rejected spontaneous forms of devotion and piety. They have even succeeded in imposing applause on funerals in place of mourning and weeping. Did Christ not mourn and weep at the death of Lazarus? “Wherever applause breaks out in the liturgy…it is a sure sign that the essence of the liturgy has totally disappeared….”[4] 
4. The importance of silence for the quality of the liturgy
Finally, we must strive to understand the motivations of this liturgical discipline concerning silence and to become imbued with it. Two particularly well-qualified authors may help us in this area, and therefore succeed in convincing us of the need for silence in the liturgy. In the first place, Msgr. Guido Marini, Master of Pontifical Ceremonies, expresses the general principle in these terms:
A well celebrated liturgy, in its different parts, plans a happy alteration of silence and speech, in which silence animates speech, allows the voice to resonate with an extraordinary depth, and keeps each verbal expression in the right atmosphere of recollection…. The required silence must not…be considered as a pause between one moment in the celebration and the next. Rather, it should be considered as a true moment of the ritual, complementing the words, the vocal prayer, the song, and the gestures.[5]
Indeed, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger had already noted in his famous book, The Spirit of the Liturgy:
[S]ilence is part of the liturgy…. [T]he greater mystery, surpassing all words, summons us to silence. It must, of course, be a silence with content, not just the absence of speech and action. We should expect the liturgy to give us a positive stillness that will restore us. Such stillness will not be just a pause, in which a thousand thoughts and desires assault us, but a time of recollection, giving us an inward peace, allowing us to draw breath and rediscover the one things necessary….[6]
This is therefore a silence in which we simply look at God and allow God to look at us and to envelop us in the mystery of his majesty and love.
Cardinal Ratzinger also mentioned several particular moments of silence, for example this one:
In some places, the Preparation of the Gifts is intended as a time for silence. This makes good sense and is fruitful, if we see the Preparation, not as just a pragmatic external action, but as an essentially interior process…. We ourselves are, or should be, the real gift…through our sharing in Jesus Christ’s act of self-offering to the Father….[7]
In this regard we must deplore the long, noisy offertory processions, involving endless dancing, in some African countries. They give the impression that one is attending a folk dance performance, which distorts the bloody sacrifice of Christ on the Cross and removes us from the Eucharistic mystery; it should be celebrated instead in recollection, because we too are plunged into his death and his self-offering to the Father. So it is appropriate to insist on the silence of the lay people during the Eucharistic Prayer, as Msgr. Guido Marini explains:
This silence is not synonymous with idleness or a lack of participation. Its purpose is to make all the faithful enter into the act of love by which Jesus offers himself to the Father on the cross for the salvation of the world. This truly sacred silence is the liturgical moment during which it is necessary to say yes, with all our strength, to Christ’s action, so that it might become our action too in everyday life.[8]
Finally, according to Cardinal Ratzinger, for their part, “the silent prayers of the priest invite him to make his task truly personal, so that he may give his whole self to the Lord…. These priestly prayers…do exist—they have to exist, now as before.”[9] Finally, for everyone, “the silence after [the reception of] Communion…is the moment for an interior conversation with the Lord who has given himself to us, for that essential ‘communicating,’ that entry into the process of communication, without which the external reception of the Sacrament becomes mere ritual and therefore unfruitful.”[10]
 
Translated by Michael J. Miller


[1] Saint John of the Cross, Maximes, 147, edited by Fr. Lucien-Marie de Saint-Joseph, O.C.D. (Bruges: DDB, 1949), 1314.
[2] Recall incidentally this passage from Musicam sacram: “17. Sacrum quoque silentium suo tempore servetur; per illud enim fideles non modo non sunt habendi tamquam extranei vel muti spectatores actionis liturgicae, sed arctius in mysterium inseruntur, quod celebratur, per dispositiones internas, quae e verbo Dei audito, e cantibus et precibus prolatis, atque ex spirituali coniunctione cum sacerdote, suas partes proferente, dimanant.”  “At the proper times, all should observe a reverent silence. Through it the faithful are not only not considered as extraneous or dumb spectators at the liturgical service, but are associated more intimately in the mystery that is being celebrated, thanks to that interior disposition which derives from the word of God that they have heard, from the songs and prayers that have been uttered, and from spiritual union with the priest in the parts that he says or sings himself.” From Austin P. Flannery, ed., Documents of Vatican II (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1975), 80-97 at 85.
[3] Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, with Vittorio Messori, The Ratzinger Report: An Exclusive Interview on the State of the Church (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1985), 127.
[4] Nicola Bux, Benedict XVI’s Reform: The Liturgy Between Innovation and Tradition, translated by Joseph Trabbic (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012), 120 [English translation slightly emended]. The author cites Cdl. Ratzinger.
[5] Monsignor Guido Marini, La Liturgie: Gloire de Dieu, sanctification de l’homme (Perpignan: Artège, 2013), 71-72.
[6] Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2000), 209.
[7] Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2000), 210-211.
[8] Monsignor Guido Marini, La Liturgie: Gloire de Dieu, sanctification de l’homme (Perpignan: Artège, 2013), 71-72.
[9] Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2000), 213. See also 213-214.
[10] Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2000), 210.