John 6:22-29 | |
 | |
Still Life with Bible, painted by Vincent Van Gogh (1853-1890), painted in October 1885, Oil on canvas © Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam | |
Gospel Reading | |
After Jesus had fed the five thousand, his disciples saw him walking on the water. Next day, the crowd that had stayed on the other side saw that only one boat had been there, and that Jesus had not got into the boat with his disciples, but that the disciples had set off by themselves. Other boats, however, had put in from Tiberias, near the place where the bread had been eaten. When the people saw that neither Jesus nor his disciples were there, they got into those boats and crossed to Capernaum to look for Jesus. When they found him on the other side, they said to him, 'Rabbi, when did you come here?' Jesus answered: 'I tell you most solemnly, you are not looking for me because you have seen the signs but because you had all the bread you wanted to eat. Do not work for food that cannot last, but work for food that endures to eternal life, the kind of food the Son of Man is offering you, for on him the Father, God himself, has set his seal.' Then they said to him, 'What must we do if we are to do the works that God wants?' Jesus gave them this answer, 'This is working for God: you must believe in the one he has sent.' | |
Reflection on the painting | |
Our painting by Vincent van Gogh is beautiful in its simplicity. He painted this canvas in October 1885. The Bible belonged to his father, who was a pastor of the Dutch Reformed Church in the Netherlands. Vincent and his father had a rather turbulent relationship. Six months before this canvas was painted, Vincent's father died, and so this painting of his father's Bible became Vincent's portrait of his father. The Bible represented everything he saw in his father: a man dedicated and devoted to his faith. The Bible lies open at the reading of Isaiah 53, which describes a servant of God as being '…despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain…' Despite Vincent's ambivalent feelings towards his own father and also towards organised religion, he always showed great respect for Christ himself, both in his painting and in the letters he wrote to his brother Theo. In front of the Bible, we see another book: Emile Zola's La joie de Vivre. Van Gogh was a great admirer of Zola's literary works, which had a profound impact on literature and society, blending scientific principles with literary realism to critique contemporary issues. Placing Zola's book in the painting served as a kind of antithesis to his father's Bible. Zola represented a fresh and modern way of perceiving the world realistically. Vincent had come to consider the Bible as being somewhat antiquated and looking at the past, whereas Zola was looking to the future. Hence the juxtaposition of these two books in our painting became for Vincent symbolic of the past and the future. The third object we see in our painting is the candlestick with an extinguished candle, which represents his father's life which had ended six months before. This particular candle has been out a long time: there are no traces of smoke or of its having been lit recently. In today's Gospel reading, like in most other readings, Jesus is always pushing us to go beyond where we are and to hunger for 'the food that endures for eternal life'. This food is Scripture, this food is the Bible, just like the one depicted in our painting. The food is Christ himself. There is a great deal more to life than the satisfaction of our physical needs: we have also deeper, spiritual hungers and thirsts that we need to attend to if we are to live a truly balanced life and be at peace within ourselves. In the Gospel reading Jesus offers himself to us as the one who offers us the food that endures to eternal life... and we read all about Jesus in our Bibles. | |
by Father Patrick van der Vorst | |
Vital questions for Detterling:
ReplyDeleteWhen did you become aware of the existence of the Paedophile Information Exchange?
Were you aware that the Paedophile Information Exchange was affiliated to the National Council for Civil Liberties?
If you were aware of the existence of the Paedophile Information Exchange and aware that the Paedophile Information Exchange was affiliated to the National Council for Civil Liberties what steps did you take to disassociate the Left from endorsing the PIE? GENE
[A] These are not "vital" questions for me, Gene. They are, rather, a desperate attempt to salvage from the wreck of your defeated attempts to smear me as a supporter of the Paedophile Information Exchange, of paedophilia and or paedophiles.
[B] I cannot remember when I became aware of the Paedophile Information Exchange, but it was probably at the same time as most newspaper readers did in the mid 1970s - around 1976.
[C] I honestly cannot remember if I knew that the PIE was affiliated to the NCCL until the controversy over this affiliation made headlines, so this was probably in about 1978.
[D] I took no steps whatsoever to dissociate "the Left" from endorsing the Paedophile Information Exchange, for the simple reason that "the Left" does not exist. Neither the Parliamentary Labour Party nor the Labour Party itself ever associated itself with the Paedophile Information Exchange, so no steps needed to be taken to sever a connection that had never existed.
Gene, do stop making a complete tit of yourself, there's a good lad. Your humiliating trouncing over Ratzinger, his failure to unfrock Stephen Keisle in 1985 "for the good of the Catholic Church", and his thereby enabling Keisle's subsequent freedom to rape small girls and bugger small boys at St Joseph's Church, Pinole, California for a further three years must have done a great deal of damage to even your ironclad self-esteem.
But this fatuous attempt at smearing me suggests encroaching derangement on your part, not least because I have already disposed of your previous attempts to do so, and because you yourself have said, on April 13th at 1241 BST:
"No one believes you support paedophilia."
If you said that then, why pursue this preposterous attempt to smear me now? How much have you had to drink today?
And just in case you have forgotten, in your drunken stupor, just how completely I refuted your ridiculous smears, have another look at this.
ReplyDelete"You repeatedly tried to smear me, because I am left wing, as an apologist for paedophilia and a supporter of the Paedophile Information Exchange. I repudiated these smears and disproved their validity. I challenged you nine times to answer three simple questions as to my stance on paedophilia and you evaded answering them. Because you are too cowardly to put your money where your mouth is. You claimed that my “failure to condemn the NCCL motion on paedophile” “spoke volumes” - but challenged to spell out what this “failure” actually said, you were too gutless to answer. And finally you were forced to admit that I do not support paedophilia, in effect disowning the vile smears you had been trying and failing to make stick for three days. Even then then you tried to weasel out of your responsibility for those atrocious slurs by claiming that you were “giving me a taste of my own medicine”. Nonsense: you were trying to push the evidence of your defeat over Ratzinger and Stephen Kiesle off the front page.
And anent Ratzinger, it is time that you stopped telling the ridiculous lie that Dawkins et al had threatened to have Ratzinger arrested - a lie that Mr Dawkins eventually forced the Murdoch press to retract - look it up. Dawkins et al claimed that Ratzinger’s complaisance and failure to act over paedophile priests meant that he had a case to answer in the civil courts. The truth of this has been demonstrated several times using Ratzinger’s failures to deal condignly with paedophile priests, as Archbishop of Munich, head of the Congregation of the Faith and as Pope. The enthusiastic reception accorded to Ratzinger by the Catholic faithful cannot and does not mitigate these criminal failures on his part.
And, lest we forget:
ReplyDeleteHad Ratzinger unfrocked Kiesle in 1985, the abuse of children at St Joseph's would not have continued for a further three years. That is a FACT, no matter how often you try to deny it.
Ratzinger's apology in full reads as follows [my footnotes}:
“I can only express to all the victims [1] of sexual abuse my profound shame, my deep sorrow and my heartfelt request for forgiveness. I have had great responsibilities [2] in the Catholic Church. All the greater is my pain for the abuses [3] and the errors [4] hat occurred in those different places [5] during the time of my mandate."[6]
1 ALL THE VICTIMS, Gene: victimS, plural: you can tell this by the S on the end of the word. All the victims of sexual abuse that occurred during Ratzingers time as Archbishop of Munich [1977- 1982] and later head of the Congregation of the Faith and Pope - that is, 1985 - 2013. The phrase "ALL THE VICTIMS therefore must include the victims of Stephen Kiesle between the years 1985-1988, when Ratzinger failed to unfrock Kiesle. [2] I HAVE HAD GREAT RESPONSIBILITES [see 1 above]: and one of those was to detect, root out and expel priests and others in the Catholic Church whose favourite hobby was buggering small boys and raping little girls. These GREAT RESPONSIBILITIES obviously include those children abused by Stephen Kiesle after Ratzinger failed to unfrock him in 1985. [3] THE ABUSES - these must include the abuses committed by Stephen Kiesle after Ratzinger failed to unfrock him [unless you can prove differently, Gene?].
[4] THE ERRORS - these must include Ratzinger's failure to unfrock Kiesle in 1985 and probably his failure to alert Fr Thomas Ryan that he was allowing a convicted paedophile rapist to minister to the young people in his church.
[5] THOSE DIFFERENT PLACES - except, of course at St Joseph's Church, Penole, CA, where Stephen Kiesle, still a priest, continued to abuse children during the years 1985-1988 - Ratzinger made it clear that his apology did not include this, didn't he, Gene, and you can prove that, can't you? What's that? oh, you can't? Dear me, and YOU call ME a lying tosser... [5] DURING MY MANDATE: that is, during the years 1985 - 2013.
It is clear to anyone whose mind has a greater ratiocinatory capacity than a pair of skid-marked underpants that Ratzinger was apologising for all the sexual abuse committed on his watch 1985-2013 by priests whom he failed either properly to oversee, accurately to diagnose and condignly to punish, as well as arranging for their being unable to access children and young people ever again.
"I can only express to ALL the victims of sexual abuse my profound shame, my deep sorrow and my heartfelt request for forgiveness." It's that word ALL that gives it away, Gene: I'm sorry if it's confusing. Stuff your pissy little opinions up your arse. I will not apologise for telling the truth, and I will go on telling it until you acknowledge that it is the truth. In the meantime, I continue to wait for your answer to this:
"Detters can we leave A.N. WILSON and ARIANNA HUFFINGTON behind?"
Not until you have dealt honestly with this example of your lying bastardy:
'Gene writes beautifully - something not always the case with authors of trail-blazing literary works.' [A.N. WILSON]
"The genius of James Joyce is alive and well and living amongst us. His name is Gene Vincent." [A.N. WILSON]
'I was enthralled. A new star has shot into the literary firmament. [ARIANNA HUFFINGTON]
When you are going to admit that you have made these reviews and their authors up? Make no mistake: I am going to keep on asking until you tell the truth, or I lose patience, inform Mr Wilson and Ms Huffington and let nature take its course.