Sermonising in The Times

Ruth Gledhill's report in today's Times "To some, sermonising is a sin, but Christians still value the preacher" had me in stitches with the line describing the best and worst of preaching:

The best are inspirational invocations on how to live a better life in the grace of God; the worst, soporific ramblings that remind the congregation merely of how uncomfortable the pews are.

Of course, one wonders where on the line one falls. Perhaps I'm guilty of soporific invocations.

Also, I ask my Catholic readers: do you agree with the findings of the report? Do you prefer your homilies to be less than ten minutes; educational rather than challenging and scripturally based? Do give your priest regular feedback on his homilies. We do appreciate constructive criticism. It is not, however, helpful to simply say "lovely sermon Father" and then not be able to offer specifics. Once I made the fatal mistake of asking someone who'd said "lovely sermon Father" by asking what specifically was lovely. Their embarrassed look rather suggested that perhaps the newsletter had been more helpful to them that particular week! I've seen him since, reading the newsletter whilst I preach.

100 lines, Father, on "I must be a little less soporific" by the morning please.

Frank Skinner in The Times

H/T to Ruth Gledhill for drawing my attention to this article from Frank Skinner in The Times.

In his article, My Church is not a safe haven for bigots, Frank presents the funniest lines I have read in simply ages. He is talking about atheists, and says:

I’m less keen on the glut of bandwagon atheists who’ve just unquestioningly joined in because they think the atheist label makes them sound clever and grown-up. I suspect that they see themselves in an elite senior common room with Bertrand Russell and Charles Darwin while people like me are in Julie’s Pantry with Cliff Richard.

I don't even know what Julie's Pantry is but it does sound fun! Though perhaps Cliff may not be my first choice for company. Help us if it rains and he repeats that Wimbledon affair.

In all seriousness, I thought Frank Skinner raised some interesting points in his article, but cannot agree that it's 'his' Church and nor is it helpful to use the term 'liberal Catholic' as though there is a viable alternative floating around where you can pick and choose your brand of Catholicism. We are, as most would profess every Sunday, "one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church".

Frank's reminder of Küng's analogy to a road travelled with cul-de-sacs, is, I think, a helpful one. I'm not so sure the entire Church wonders off down the cul-de-sac, so much as there is the odd foray into it from a few of her members. Sometimes these members are more numerous or influential than others (think of the Bishops during the Arian years), and sometimes they are just a few bods who think themselves prophetic but are just simply misunderstanding the ancient Tradition of the Church.

In the end, we do not need bigots in the Church, but we are a Church packed with sinners, and we none of us want to throw the first stone. Perhaps we can all, from time to time, however, offer a little fraternal correction (as we used to say in seminary) and let's not be labeling ourselves!

The Turin Shroud

Ruth Geldhill has an interesting article on the Turin Shroud on her blog. I think this is such an amazing item and seems, for me at least, to have featured large in my faith journey. Never a central issue, but it has been there all along. When I was younger I was absolutely convinced it was the genuine article. There was no doubting in my mind.

Then, as I grew, and perhaps true to say as I grew more cynical, I became convinced it was a fake. The evidence for this shift? Because the Church (or probably because the Pope as I would have seen it) was keeping the information from the public. There's no smoke without fire and if they've nothing to hide, then they'd tell us all about it. Wouldn't they? Anyway, had it not been leaked that the carbon dating 'proved' that it was a fake? Surely! And we all now know that science doesn't make mistakes. The facts cannot lie.


My faith was reignited and suddenly the shroud was probably the real thing. I journeyed ever closer to the Lord, saw the documentary on the TV a couple of years back (was it Martin Bashir?) and was utterly convinced it was genuine. I got over-excited and was busy sharing my new found confidence in it's authenticity was everyone. Sorry, to all my friends!!


Now it seems that there is to be a new documentary, there is more Vatican commentary and it all starts over again. What do I think today? Is it real? Well, probably, yes. Does my faith depend on it being real, as it once probably did? No it does not, and if truth be known, nor did my faith ever depend on the authenticity or otherwise of the Turin Shroud.


Want a better conundrum - what if archeology unearthed the bones of Jesus. Now, what would Dan Brown have to say on this, I wonder?

11 April - update Fr Longenecker writes: We watched The Passion of the Christ last night, and it was cool to see that James Caviezel's make up was designed to make him look like the man on the shroud.

Calm down, dear, it's only a bishop

Fascinating to read Ruth Gledhill's blog, noting:

Westninster - no decision yet
The Congregation for Bishops failed yesterday to reach a decision. It is now likely that there will be no announcement on the new Archbishop of Westminster until after Easter. More soon.

Is it me, or does the entire world seem to be awaiting the outcome of the Holy Spirit's deliberations in this matter? I know, it's just me, that's okay, I can deal with it.

Nonetheless, I smirked when I saw Ruth's typo for Westminster. We all make them. Perhaps in her good grace to rush to get the news to us that it's merely an oversight. Though, it begs the question; just how does she know all this? That has to be one heck of a leak!


When you know, Ruth, do blog, please!

The journey to health, begins with your mind.

Ruth Gledhill, writing on her blog, speaks of the need "to face up to the inevitable and split my blog and personal Twitter accounts" and I see where she might be coming from. In writing my own blog, and indeed my twitters, too, I have decided that they remain very much 'public' in so much as they are who I am. Of course, I moderate myself, as you might expect. This raises an interesting point, considering Ruth's extensive quote of the Dalai Lama, which I also quote here:

'For a start, it is possible to divide every kind of happiness and suffering into two main categories: mental and physical. Of the two, it is the mind that exerts the greatest influence on most of us. Unless we are either gravely ill or deprived of basic necessities, our physical condition plays a secondary role in life. If the body is content, we virtually ignore it. The mind, however, registers every event, no matter how small. Hence we should devote our most serious efforts to bringing about mental peace.

'From my own limited experience I have found that the greatest degree of inner tranquility comes from the development of love and compassion.

'The more we care for the happiness of others, the greater our own sense of well-being becomes. Cultivating a close, warm-hearted feeling for others automatically puts the mind at ease. This helps remove whatever fears or insecurities we may have and gives us the strength to cope with any obstacles we encounter. It is the ultimate source of success in life.

'As long as we live in this world we are bound to encounter problems. If, at such times, we lose hope and become discouraged, we diminish our ability to face difficulties. If, on the other hand, we remember that it is not just ourselves but every one who has to undergo suffering, this more realistic perspective will increase our determination and capacity to overcome troubles. Indeed, with this attitude, each new obstacle can be seen as yet another valuable opportunity to improve our mind!

'Thus we can strive gradually to become more compassionate, that is we can develop both genuine sympathy for others' suffering and the will to help remove their pain. As a result, our own serenity and inner strength will increase.'

Surely, if we encourage some 'split' between the private and the personal, then we encourage, or at least risk, a sort of schizophrenic approach to our lives. That we can do and say and be one thing to most people and yet something very different to those closest to us. The difference can be such that we end up bearing little similarity between the two, or fail to realise the huge impact one on the other. For example, we might publicly condemn extra-marital sex and be engaged in such an affair ourselves. If others look to us as an example, then we must ensure that the private is as close as possible to the public. Or, indeed, that the public reflect the private.

Our life in Christ is, after all, a very open relationship with our Saviour. Clearly, we want to keep some aspects of our life private. Is it really necessary that another person need know all in my life that I am ashamed of? Well, no, it is not. But if that shame impacts on how I treat others, or infringes on my ability to love the other completely, then yes, others do need to know of it (even if not the details) in order that the light of Christ shines forth.

I offer up a prayer, that all may know the peace of Christ in their life, and may have the strength and courage to believe them self a child of God, wholly wonderful in all aspects of their life.

What a waste of money.

Shocking news of the "first mass book-burning in the 21st century". This is the story, reported by Ruth Gledhill and Damian Thompson, of a four-volume encyclopedia which has been destroyed after its first print, for being too Christian. The title of the books? Encyclopedia of Christian Civilization. You have to read this story to believe it.

Following a long, and costly, process to production, and following acclaimed reviews, there were complaints made that the series was too Christian in some of it's terminology e.g. using BC/AD instead of the secular BCE/CE. Also criticised was a need for more "material denigrating Christianity in some form or fashion.”

Sadly, it comes to be accepted that in our secularised part of the world, it's okay to attack Christians and demand a representation of history and culture. More shocking, however, is that these books couldn't have been given to people who can ill afford books. People, perhaps appreciative for the chance of an education, who are more than capable of making up their own mind. Unlike, it appears, the anticipated readers of the publishers of this series.

Shame on them, I say.