What the Rosary means to me – 15

As a Christian, I think the Rosary has universal value. I like how it is simple enough for anyone to pray; and so also a good medicine to any who, out of spiritual pride, might consider it too simple for them. It should draw me into the simple love between Mary and Jesus and teach me their humility. There isn’t a technique to saying the Rosary: if I’m looking for one, or make an effort to pray it ‘better’, I’m probably still thinking too much about myself, not enough about God. The Rosary is also Biblical: it gets me to pray in the very words of Jesus, the angel Gabriel and Elizabeth; and it inspires me to meditate on the ‘mysteries’ of the Gospel. Its themes are the universal stories of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection: how could I enter these mysteries and not accordingly feel joyful, sorrowful and full of wonder?

As a Dominican, the Rosary has long had a special place in our tradition: we popularised it around the world, and in its current form it is known as ‘the Rosary of St Dominic’. The Rosary is also part of our habit – so it is something I wear in public – and with its Cross and beads can be a good, symbolic witness to faith in Jesus and the importance of prayer.

More personally, the Rosary meditations on Christ’s life are an opportunity for me to offer prayers for my friends, family and anyone else. While every aspect of Christ is relevant to everyone, I find the Mysteries are sometimes particularly appropriate: the Wedding at Cana for those recently married or preparing for marriage, the Carrying of the Cross for those struggling under the weight of their problems, or the Institution of the Eucharist for priests. So for the brethren (including myself), I like to pray while meditating on the Third Luminous Mystery: The Proclamation of the Kingdom of God and the Call to Repentance!

Vocations Day in Oxford

Might God be calling you to a life of Prayer, Community, and Preaching the Gospel?

'Speak Lord your Servant is Listening'

A Day of reflection on the vocation of a Dominican Friar for men aged 18-35.

Saturday 12th November 11.00 - 16.45

Priory of the Holy Spirit, St. Giles, Oxford

The day will include a talk by Fr. Timothy Radcliffe O.P., prayer and discussion with the Friars, and a light lunch.


For more information: vocations.promoter@english.op.org

Saints the Month-13 October: St. Edward the Confessor

Above the main entrance to Westminster Cathedral, the mother-church of English and Welsh Catholics, is a wonderful mosaic of Christ Enthroned. He is surrounded by Our Lady, St. Joseph, St. Peter and on the far-right St. Edward the Confessor, King of England. St. Edward is the only King of England to be canonised and was the patron saint of the realm until about 1350, when Edward III proclaimed the more military figure of St. George as the "patron on the English race." Nevertheless, St. Edward's inclusion in the mosaic is rather apt. He represents the temporal order of England.

St. Edward is the patron Saint of difficult marriages. His own marriage produced no children and was tied up in dynastic disputes. However his other 'marriage' between his crown and subjects was also turbulent. He was born under the shadow of constant Viking invasion and when Cnut seized the English throne, the thirteen year old Edward went into exile for nearly a quarter of a century. After Cnut died in 1035, there were numerous attempts to put Edward on the throne of England. Finally in 1047 he returned to his homeland and was crowned King in Winchester.

Edward's reign was a constant struggle to maintain order. The English Earls were a constant threat to his crown and the peace of the realm; The Welsh Princes and Scottish Kings were often a treat in the border regions; and many of the Church leaders were under the control of his enemies and he had not produced an heir. His succession famously was also a messy affair leading to "1066 and all that".

Many historians have argued that his subsequent canonisation was a political act by his Norman successors but there is much evidence that after his death a cult very quickly established itself around the saintly King. Despite his love of hunting and well known fits of rage, he was regarded as a good King and more importantly as a holy man who tried to carry out his royal duties according to the Gospel.

Christians do not live in a bubble. Most of us live in the world and can not escape the chaos and activity around us. Nevertheless we must use Christ as our guide whether we are dealing with tax returns, office politics or troublesome Welsh princes. This is never always easy and we can fall in to the trap of indulging in realpolitik. The fact is the Gospel is not only realistic but the only way.

Why a New Translation?

Over the next few weeks the Godzdogz team will be giving a series of reflections on the new Mass translation.

Anyone who has studied a foreign language will understand that translation is a tricky business. What can be expressed with great elegance in one language may sound very awkward in another if one tries too hard to capture the exact meaning. An alternative strategy is to use a principle called dynamic equivalence. Dynamic equivalence gives translators the freedom to effectively paraphrase the original text so that whilst the translation may not be very precise, the result is much more natural and easier to understand. The principle of dynamic equivalence was used for the first translations of the Mass that came out after Vatican II. Over the years, many people have grown to love these translations and there is a recognition of the positive results they've had in bringing about the liturgical renewal urged for by the Council. But that's not to say things can't be improved.


The English translation has suffered from a number of defects. Of course this doesn't mean that the Mass was in any way invalid, but still, the use of dynamic equivalence has ended up obscuring the original meaning rather than making it more accessible. Expressions of our need for God's grace, expressions of humility before God, the mystery of the Mass, the relationship between the Mass and Sacred Scripture – many people have complained that these expressions were lost in translation.

In 2001 an official instruction, Liturgiam Authenticam was issued which marked a departure from the principle of dynamic equivalence in the translation of liturgical books. The new guidance was that translations should be characterized by a kind of language which is easily understandable, yet which at the same time preserves the original texts' dignity, beauty, and doctrinal precision. Of course balancing all these demands is very challenging and the instruction recognized this and said 'in translating biblical passages where seemingly inelegant words or expressions are used, a hasty tendency to sanitize this characteristic is to be avoided.' Translators were also urged to 'allow the signs and images of the texts, as well as the ritual actions, to speak for themselves; they should not attempt to render too explicit that which is implicit in the original texts.'

The new translation may take a long time to get used to, and perhaps some people will never get used to it, but whatever feelings we have, we can still pray that the new Mass translation will have a positive effect in renewing the life of the Church.

Academic Mass 2011

The academic year at Blackfriars began with a votive Mass of the Holy Spirit and Vespers. It is very apt to begin the year by asking the Holy Spirit, to fill us with wisdom and understanding, to enlighten our minds and to aid our studies in the year to come. It is also a good opportunity for the new students to meet each other and the friars. In his homily, the Regent of Studies, Fr. Richard Finn encouraged the congregation to allow the Holy Spirit to enflame their hearts and minds with a love of study and love of each other.

After the Mass the community and students of the hall and studium enjoyed an opportunity to socialise over curry and a glass of wine

.

Godzdogz Team 2011-2012

Front Row L to R: Robert Verrill, Gustave Noël Ineza (Vicariate of Rwanda and Burundi), Fr. David Sanders (Student Master), Augustine J. DeArmond, (Province of St. Martin de Porres), Andrew Brookes, Gregory Pearson

Back Row: Mark Davoren, Matthew Jarvis, Haavar Simon Nilsen (Vicariate of Dacia), Nicholas Crowe, Oliver Keenan, Graham Hunt

Is There a Doctor in the House?

This week in Oxford many of the buses have carried an side-advertisement stating: " There's Probably No Dawkins. Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Oct 25th at the Sheldonian Theatre." The advert is for the Reasonable Faith Tour with William Lane Craig. Richard Dawkins has refused to debate with Professor William Lane Craig, the American analytic philosopher and philosophical theologian at the event. Dr. Dawkins has branded Professor Craig a 'ponderous buffoon' who uses logic to 'bamboozle his faith-head audience', but has failed to respond to any of Professor Craig’s academic arguments. The Oxford philosopher Dr. Daniel Came, an atheist himself, has written to Dr Dawkins stating that 'the absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part'.

Whilst I profoundly disagree with Dr. Dawkins' views on religion, it is real shame the leading (or least loudest) secularist atheist should act in such a way.

An ecumenical H/T to Cranmer,The British blogger and examiner or religio-political agendas with politico-religious objectives

Why Only Twitter Deep?

Deacon's Homily, Thursday 27th week Year 1

Yesterday, we heard how the disciples asked Jesus to teach them how to pray. Jesus answers by teaching them the prayer that will become the most frequently used of all Christian prayers, the Our Father. Jesus teaches them how to pray, but he doesn't stop there. He knows just all too well that if his disciples pose the question of how, it will sooner or later be followed by the question of why. It is this why that today's reading is concerned with.

Jesus assures us that God the Father will be there for us as a father is there for his child. He is even mocking the disciples gently, giving them absurd examples to show how the Father would never act: If his son asks for a fish, will he then instead of a fish give him a serpent? No, the Father is there, listening and acting, providing us with what we need.

But even if Jesus asserts that the Father always listens to anyone who prays to him, some of us may have experienced moments of doubt. There might have been times when we have begged God for help, without getting an answer. At least not the answer we hoped for. And we feel from within ourselves this troubling question: Why?

This why may contain resignation and despair, a why without any visible chance of solution. But this is also a question that God wants to hear from us. Children pose this question all the time. Why is it like this or that? And we answer: Because so and so. Yes, but WHY? And in the end, it might be the child who makes us wonder why.

This fundamental question is rooted in the core of our very existence. God created us in his image, we are made for relationship, we are made for divine interaction! We are called to turn to our Creator in a constant dialogue, or to say it with John Henry Newman as he quotes St Augustine: Cor ad Cor Loquitor - heart speaks to heart. To enable this open-hearted relationship, God gives us the Holy Spirit. This is the ultimate gift that our Father wants to offer us. This is the gift that can lead us to an answer for all our why's.

In a moment, we will pray the prayer that Jesus taught us. Let us then silently open our hearts to the mystery we celebrate, as we ask our father: Thy will be done.

Biblical Beasts: Whale

Is there any mention of whales in the Bible? Your first reaction might well be, “Of course there is: there’s the story of Jonah being swallowed by a whale.” Even if you were trying to be more thorough, you might still think this was a fairly straightforward question to answer in the age of fully searchable texts of Scripture in programs like BibleWorks. However, we soon find that this seemingly simple question is actually rather more complicated. In many English versions of the Bible, it turns out, there is no mention of whales at all! Other translations, on the other hand, do have some references to whales, but none in the book of Jonah! So what’s going on?

Basically, it’s a question of translation: in the case of Jonah specifically, many English translations use the word ‘whale’ when Jesus talks about the sign of Jonah in St Matthew’s Gospel (Mt 12: 40), because the Greek word used there sometimes means whale. It also, however, refers to any large fish or sea-monster, and thus was used by the Greek translators of the Old Testament to refer to the ‘great fish’ of which the Hebrew speaks in the book of Jonah (2: 1). This highlights the care that must be taken in the interpretation of the Bible, because if we only knew the English version, we might think Jesus mistakenly thought a whale was a large fish, whereas in fact, if it’s anyone’s mistake, it’s the translators’.

Indeed, the difficulty of identifying the meaning of words referring to the fauna of the Bible has been a recurring theme in our series on Biblical Beasts. It reminds us that the Scriptures are written in the words of human beings, and present us with all the ordinary challenges that language presents: that is why a ‘scientific’ study of Scripture is useful and important. However, we must never allow such study to distract us from the fact that Scripture is the Word of God, and points beyond the human realities its words usually describe to the divine realities that it reveals: in the end, the importance of the sign of Jonah is not to be found in the question of whether it was a whale or some other sea creature, but in the death and resurrection of Christ, of which Jonah’s re-emergence from the creature is a type.

Fruits of Study 8: The Notion of Love

Our faith is based on love, and love is the foundation of our whole life. Of course we know what it is, but trying to describe it is not always that easy. Can we at all give a definition of such an all-embracing, profound notion?

One who did exactly that was Eric Fromm. Born in in 1900, he witnessed two world wars with all its horror and life threatening violence. He came from a Jewish family with strong academic traditions, and he did his formation as psychoanalyst in Germany before moving to the United States in 1934. His religious background and insight in the Talmud strongly influenced his elaboration of the understanding of humanity. In a time where hate and contempt for the dignity and worth of the human being had marked the world society, Fromm sought an answer to the question of the fundamental needs of humanity. He was opposed to the Freudian understanding of the human being, claiming that it is not sexuality, that first and foremost constitutes the drive in humanity, but the deep need of belonging. Fromm developed a humanistic philosophy based on the Biblical story of Adam and Eve becoming strangers in front of God, each other and even themselves. From the moment of the fall, life becomes a struggle to reunite with the world.

Fromm explains how the human being may unite with the world in many different ways; many of them false, others resulting in a limited freedom and peace. (Examples of unsatisfying ways of uniting with the world, says Fromm, can be found in narcissism, submission or domination. The most common way of our time though, is what can be called a herd conformity which in its ground is rooted in a rather primitive feeling of clan identity.) The only way that can fully answer this the deep desire of belonging is love. And we are not talking about being loved, but developing the capacity of loving. Fromm confronted the same difficulty as we started with: What is love? Fromm introduced four notions to describe the quality of loving, each of them describing a certain attitude: care, responsibility, respect and knowledge. These qualities lead man out of himself and draw his attention to the other. Through care he is concerned with growth and happiness of the other person. He takes responsibility by responding to the others articulated or non-articulated needs. He respects the other person and sees him objectively (and not the way he wishes to see him), and he search to know the other sufficiently to see the world from the perspective of the other. This is the fundamental attitude that every human being can take part in, and it should be underlined that this not only to applies to certain people, like the ones we prefer, but to all of humanity. Fromm writes: 'if I can say "I love you", I say, "I love in you all of humanity, all that is alive; I love also myself". Self-love, in this sense, is the opposite of selfishness'. This kind of all-embracing love is in its nature a brotherly love; an equal, respectful and caring attitude, always leaving the other person free.

Egypt: St. Menas designated by Christ as his trusted friend and adviser. 6th century

This is a way of describing love that we as Christians are invited to meditate upon. It corresponds to the Christian notion of love which is at the same time universal and personal. Fromm's description helps us to see clearer how love should be realized, yes, it can even be used to prepare ourselves for confession. After all, we often fail in meeting with those around us, in one or several of the notions that Fromm mentions.

If you would like to know more of Eric Fromm, I recommend his bestselling book, The Art of Loving, which through a simple language describes the depths of our inner selves.

Biblical Beasts: Vulture

Those parts of the Old Testament canon originally written in Hebrew have a number of words for birds but a significant one among them is ‘nesher’. This bird is described as having magnificent wings and soaring high, of nesting in high rocky outcrops, of having keen eyesight and descending swiftly on its food source. Well, it could be an eagle (see the blog from 20 July) but it could equally be a vulture. In particular it could very well be the Griffon Vulture, also called the Great Vulture, its modern scientific Latin name being Gyps fulvus. It was common in Palestine and indeed is still found all around the Mediterranean. This bird does not correspond to the stereotype we now tend to have of vultures as scruffy, quarrelsome and unintelligent. The Griffon Vulture is a very large bird, being little short of five feet in total length, and the wingspan measuring about eight feet. The adult bird is a yellowish brown colour, augmented by the black quill feathers and the ruff of white down that surrounds the neck. (All photos here are of the Griffon Vulture.)

There are several species of eagle found in Palestine so why argue the case for nesher meaning or including the vulture? Well, because the (Griffon) vulture fulfills all the qualities already ascribed to nesher. And there are further attributes of nesher that eagles do NOT meet that the Griffon vulture (and other vultures) do. Micah 1:16 describes nesher as having a bald head: eagles are feathered on the head but vultures, including the Griffon, are not. It has light down. Nesher is described as feeding on the dead, i.e. carrion (Prov 30:17; Job 39:27-30): again only vultures, and not eagles, do this. Nesher is described as being long-lived, prompting the suggestion that it renews its youth (Ps 103:5): eagles can be long lived but the Griffon exceeds them all – living in the wild typically for at least 40-50 years and in excess of 100 in captivity. The Griffon is known to be intelligent, to care for its young, assisting them in early flight, thus ‘bearing them on their wings’ (cf Ex 19:4; Rev 12:14).

Although vultures are not highly esteemed nowadays (in the west) they had high prestige in the ancient world. It was a symbol of a deity among both the Egyptians and Assyrians, often linked to war. This is partly because they seemed to follow armies and to descend with lightning speed in battles. Indeed, the speed with which they found the dead and their capacity for being present when battles occurred gained them a reputation for foresight, and even a share in divine foresight and insight – and more widely divine knowledge. (All this means that the vulture could lie behind the bird in Ezek 1:10 and, though in a Greek text, in the Book of Revelation 4:7.)

It is all of this that Jesus seems to refer to and draw on when he cites the saying ‘Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather (Matt 18:24). The context is the sudden but very public coming of God at the end of time and in judgment. Vultures, previously tiny specks high in the sky, swoop down suddenly and with devastating effect - and seemingly with divine knowledge. They gather in very obvious numbers. Eagles do not gather like this, but vultures do, and among the vultures, the Griffons then feed in a social manner, not disturbing each other. Jesus clearly had the vulture, not the eagle in mind. This is almost certainly true of the similar phrase in Lk 17:37: there is a gathering of birds though Luke uses ‘soma’ which can mean a living or dead body. The context suggests the same kind of meaning as above: the disciples can be sure that God will come, and with speed and power and thus they should be vigilant and indeed stay awake and spiritually alive. A vulture also fits better in the context of Rev 8:13 than an eagle, ‘seeing’ destruction and presumably also death.

If nesher represent one species of bird (as we understand species) then the Griffon vulture is the only candidate. It is also the vulture that Jesus has in mind. Why then is the eagle and not the (griffon) vulture seen as the great religious bird and symbol of divinity in the Christian tradition? The problems begin with the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew texts into Greek from around 200 BC and later. They sometimes use aetos for nesher. Sometimes they use ‘gups’ but they also use this for other Hebrew bird words, and of seemingly smaller birds. They were attempting some sort of biological classification different to what was in the Hebrew words before them and I wonder how well they knew the Palestinian fauna. The ancient Greeks in general did not always distinguish vultures and eagles, but many translators since then have considered that aetos ought in general to be translated as eagle. (Some note that it means vulture if the reference is to a bird feeding on carrion – but ornithological expertise is often lacking.) Only aetos is used in the New Testament. In Roman and Latin culture the eagle, not the vulture, was considered the bird of prowess and a military symbol of power and this view has spread to modern cultures. In translations, eagle has thus dominated over vulture (often to its complete exclusion), sometimes creating exegetical problems. All seem to have lost sight of the magnificent Griffon Vulture. Perhaps the Hebrews intended to include eagles in some of their references to nesher. But the Griffon Vulture, which they clearly knew about, has to all intents and purposes been ‘lost in translation’. To make matters worse, it is now an endangered species in Israel.

Friars' Passions; Cricket?

I had for some time by various cunning ruses and strategems managed to avoid contributing to Godzdogz's 'friars' passions' series. Indeed, i was just begining to relax my vigilance thinking myself safe after two years on the Godzdogz team when, alas, the long arm of the law finally caught up with me in the form of Br. Mark.

The problem is I don't really have a 'passion' anymore. Before I joined the Order I would have perhaps claimed to be passionate about cricket, but it would probably be more truthful to say that I was passionate about winning cricket matches, which is not quite the same thing. As teenagers my team was often told by one of our coaches: 'I want you to enjoy the game, but I'd rather you enjoyed winning.' This became something of a motto for me. I spent hours plotting the downfall of opponents, both on my own and with teammates. We used to disect and analyze matches, training sessions, our techniques, our tactics. We always maintained a brutal honesty, searching for incremental improvements that would cumulatively build to significant leaps in quality. On match day itself we would fight tooth and nail to win.

The fact that cricket (partly because the game takes so long) is so multifaceted meant that in this process of analyzing and struggling I learnt an awful lot about myself, about team dynamics, about leadership, about dealing with pressure, about achieving goals. All of these skills have been enormously beneficial to my academic and personal development from adolescence upwards, and I have been surprised by just how much 'cricket wisdom' is transferable to religious life. But in the end this hyper-competitive outlook destroyed the game for me. As I became older cricket became more and more a chore, something I felt compelled to do rather than something I wanted to do and it was with some relief that I stopped playing after University. Sometimes I think about starting again now that I am older and possibly more mature, but I haven't done anything about it yet.

Now I spend my free time in a number of different ways, all of which i enjoy, but none of which consume me in the way that cricket used to. They are not passions. Indeed, my favourite way to while away an evening is with a good pint with good friends in a proper pub. Maybe next time I'll write a post about that...

Biblical Beasts: Unicorn

Today unicorns have a rather effeminate, placid reputation. One can see this in children's story books but also in the Harry Potter series, My Little Pony and a recent episode of Glee. This image is rather far removed from the ancient and medieval account of the fictional one-horned horse. It was seen as the fiercest and swiftest of all land creatures and could not be caught by any hunter. The only way to catch one was to put a virgin girl in its path. The unicorn, seeing the maiden, comes to her and puts its head in her lap and falls asleep. This fierce imagery is also used in the bible. In the Book of Numbers, God is described as having the strength of a Unicorn and the ability to tame the beast. The horns of the Unicorn are often used as a symbol of despair and terror in the Psalms and the Book of Job.

It might come as a surprise that unicorns are mentioned in the Bible at all, and this is very understandable. Many English translations of the Old testament translate the Hebrew word רְאֵם (re’em) as Ox. The Greek Septuagint and Latin Vulgate translated the term as μονόκερως (monokeros) and unicornis respectively. The King James Bible also translates the word as the English "unicorn"(The Douai-Rheims opts for rhinoceros).

Nevertheless the unicorn was seen as a rich symbol of Christ by the medieval Church. One bestiary states that:

The unicorn signifies Christ, who was made incarnate in Mary's womb, was captured by the Jews, and was put to death. The unicorn's fierce wildness shows the inability of hell to hold Christ. The single horn represents the unity of God and Christ. The small size of the unicorn is a symbol of Christ's humility in becoming human.

Just as the unicorn has lost much of its edge in pubic perception, so has the person of Jesus Christ. He was not just a nice man, who told nice stories and told everyone 'just be nice'. He was the Son of God. He was a true radical and a true revolutionary. He came not just to change peoples' attitudes and opinions but to change the very nature of the world. Through His death and resurrection Jesus not only restores our nature but elevates to something so much better.

Biblical Beasts: Snake

When one reads the story of the Fall in the book of Genesis, it is of no surprise that snakes have been associated with sin and the devil. In many ways the creature suits this anthropomorphism. For a mammal there is something sinister about it's cold-blooded reptilian ways and mannerisms but I also think that the snake, particularly captures the effects of sin of humanity. The medieval Aberdeen Bestiary declares that "All snakes are coiled and twisted, never straight. It is said that there are as many poisons, deaths and griefs as there are kinds of snakes." The fact that most snakes slither on the ground could also be said to display how through sin humanity has fallen in dignity from its God-given natural elevated and erect state. The snake's lack of true limbs also show how living in sin disables us; it makes us weaker; it limits our ability and opportunity.

Despite all this, the snake also offers a metaphor for solution. Snakes shed their skin by rubbing against rough surfaces, often rocks. We too can "shed our skins" of sins by going to the True Rock, that is Christ. Through him we are made new and freed from the tyranny of sin and death .

28th September: The Dominican Martyrs of Nagasaki

Neh 2:1-8, Ps 136:1-6, Lk 9:57-62

What does it mean to follow Christ? Following Christ could be understood in lots of ways, but in order to come to a proper understanding, we must at the very least consider where He is heading - He’s heading towards Calvary. In today’s gospel, the demands He makes on those who might consider this journey, are really quite shocking. The Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head. He is of no fixed abode and so following Him and sharing in His life means our place in the world is very precarious and insecure. Equally troubling is what He says to the person who wants to bury his father. The Church teaches that burying the dead is one of the seven corporal works of mercy, so can Jesus really mean we have to forgo such charitable works in order to follow Him? And don’t we owe something to our family and friends who have helped us and shaped us? Does following Jesus mean we have to be so transfixed on Him that all our other relationships should be severed without even so much as a goodbye? If there is a degree of hyperbole in what Jesus is saying, we mustn’t use this as a reason to water down what He says. Following Jesus is not ordinary and straightforward.

In the lives of the saints, we can see the extraordinary ways in which people have followed Christ. Today we celebrate the memorial of 16 martyrs who laboured to establish the Church in Nagasaki in the 17th Century. All of these martyrs were either Dominicans or associated in some way with the Dominican family, and the example they set provides a contrast with the would-be followers of Jesus in today’s Gospel. One of these martyrs, St Dominic Ibanez de Erquicia wrote a very moving letter to his father before he died. In this letter we learn that when he went out as a missionary to Japan, he was fully aware of the persecutions that were going on, but during his time there, the level of persecution greatly increased. And so when he wrote to his father, he knew it might be his last letter. In his final words he writes:

my beloved Father, let us so act that we may see one another in heaven for all eternity, fearing no separation here. Let us have no concern for this world, for it is our exile and separates us from God who is our total good. I say to my dearest sister: do not forget to commend me to God. To all my relatives and friends I send greetings. May the Lord keep you until you reach our heavenly homeland.

Although in our own society we don’t face the threat of torture and death for our faith, we still need to ask ourselves ‘how willing are we to go with Christ on the road to Calvary?’ It may feel like the way the martyrs followed Christ is beyond us, more than we could possibly endure. But we need to remember that whatever way we follow Christ, we do not go it alone. We are accompanied by the Church here on earth, we are accompanied by the saints in heaven, and of course when we follow Christ, we are with Christ.

from a homily preached by fr. Robert Verrill OP

Ordinations at Blackfriars

On the 17th of September our brothers Haavar Nilsen and Robert Verrill were ordained to the diaconate, and fr. Lawrence Lew to the priesthood by Archbishop Joseph Tobin, secretary of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life . The day was not only a joyful day for the Province but for the brothers' families and friends who had come to support them and share in their joy.

Fr. Lawrence will be working in the University of Edinburgh's Catholic chaplaincy and brs. Haavar and Robert will serve as deacons at Blackfriars, Oxford. Please keep them and their missions in your prayers.

The soundtrack of the video below contains a live recording of the specially composed motet by James MacMillan.  For more information visit the NLM. 

Fruits of Study 7: Esse and Essentia

St Thomas’ second argument in the Summa for God’s existence goes along the following lines: in the universe, everything we sense has some cause, nothing can cause itself to exist and there can’t be an infinite series of causes. Therefore there must be a first cause, and this we call God. This cosmological might at first seem susceptible to some serious objections: if God can exist without being caused, then why can’t other things exist without being caused? Why can’t there be lots of first causes? Aquinas’ argument for the distinction between esse and essentia in his short work, De Ente et Essentia can help us to respond to these objections.

Essentia and esse are rather technical terms for St Thomas, but roughly speaking they correspond to the two operations of the intellect: we can understand what something is, and we can understand that something is. Essentia is that within something by which we understand what it is; the essentia determines the specific manner of somethings existence. Similarly, esse is that within something by which we understand it to actually exist; it is because of a thing’s esse, because of its act of being, that something is actual, real, existing. Everything that exists must have an essentia and an esse.

The fact that we might understand what a unicorn is (its essentia) without knowing whether it exists (i.e. has an esse) suggests that essentia and esse are different. But does this difference in our understanding correspond to something in reality, or is it just the way our minds work which makes us think essentia and esse are distinct? St Thomas says it’s the former - esse and essentia are really distinct. He uses a rather subtle argument to show that essentia and esse are distinct in reality for any essentia that can be in more than one thing. For example, human nature (an essentia) can be in two different human beings, and therefore there must be a real distinction between a person’s essentia and their esse. A corollary of this is that there can be at most one thing whose essentia and esse are identical. Such ‘a thing’, if it existed would be pure existence. In De Ente et Essentia, the question of whether God exists is the same as the question of whether pure existence exists. This is not obvious – after all Aquinas doesn’t believe in pure whiteness or pure heat, so why should he believe in pure existence?

His argument for pure existence is rather like the second way argument in the Summa: everything that belongs to something must depend on its essentia or arise from something extrinsic to it. For example, a person’s tendency to laugh depends on their human nature, but a person’s knowledge also depends on some external reality. Now everything possesses an essentia and an esse, and a things esse cannot come from its essentia because the essentia depends on the esse for its actuality, and so a things esse comes from something extrinsic to it. This extrinsic thing must also have an esse and essentia, and so we can apply the same argument again to show that the esse of this extrinsic thing must also be caused by something else extrinsic to it. Now this argument can’t go on for ever; the argument can only stop if there is something whose esse and essentia are identical. This is the first cause. It is unique, it depends on nothing else, and everything in the universe depends on it. And this is what we call God.

Term is Coming...

Simple and Solemn Professions 2011

Last weekend the Province of England has had much to celebrate. On the 10th of September, fr. Graham Hunt OP and fr. Gregory Pearson OP made solemn profession at Blackfriars, Oxford. In his homily the provincial, John Farrell OP, reflected on the fraternity of the Friars Preachers, which crosses both time and geography.

On Sunday fr. Matthew Jarvis OP and fr. Oliver Keenan OP made their simple professions at the Priory of St. Michael the Archangel, Cambridge. They have since arrived in Oxford and will be joining the Godzdogz team this coming term.

Biblical Beasts: Raven

The raven has a rather sinister reputation. Throughout history it has been used as a symbol of the macabre. One has to only think of Poe's poem The Raven, Marlowe's play The Jew of Malta and more recently the Omen trilogy. This association is not limited to the West. In the Koran it is the raven that teaches Cain how to bury his murdered brother Abel and amongst the Inuit people this scavenger is viewed as a 'trickster-god'.

The raven's character in the Judeo-Christian tradition however is far more varied: They are condemned as unclean in the Book of Leviticus; they are Noah's failed scouts at the end of the flood; and one of Kings of the Midianites defeated by Gideon is called "Oreb" (עורב) which means "Raven". On the other hand they also are sent by God to aid and bring food to Elijah. There are further examples within Christianity of the raven acting in a caring and protective way: A raven is said to have protected Saint Benedict by taking away a loaf of bread poisoned by jealous monks after he blessed it. The legend of St. Vincent of Saragossa, the 4th century martyr, states that after St. Vincent was executed, ravens protected his body from being devoured by wild animals, until his followers could recover the body. His body was taken to what is now known as Cape St. Vincent in southern Portugal. A shrine was erected over his grave, which continued to be guarded by flocks of ravens. When the Portuguese king transfered St. Vincent's relics to Lisbon the ravens followed. An event still commemorated on the Coat of Arms of the city

Fruits of Study 6: Suffering and Love in St Catherine of Siena

Catherine of Siena (1347-80) was very practical and focused and on how to help people be saved and sanctified in the concrete situation of their lives. For her, suffering was a daily reality and one that can be crushing and an obstacle to a life of faith. She wanted people to see suffering in the light of God’s truth and goodness and then use it positively to produce a life of love and other virtues. As with other themes she relates this to the Crucified Christ, the centre of her thought.

In the Dialogue, chapter 14 (D 14), she explains Christ’s saving work through an extended medical metaphor. We are wounded, indeed have puss in us which is deadly, and God steps in as the divine healer. She makes it clear we are too weak to suck out our own poison (the roots of our sin) and so heal ourselves. She draws on a medieval view of medicine that considered that some medicines are too strong for a baby to take. (‘Bitter’ is her own word which may be selected in view of the application she is going to make of the practice.) However, if the mother or wet-nurse (again a common practice in her day) is willing to endure the bitterness of the medicine then she can pass it on to the baby in a less bitter form along with the nourishing milk from her breast. She specifically says that God joined the divine and human natures together in Jesus to ‘drink the bitter medicine of his painful death on the cross so that he might heal and give life to you [us] who were babies weakened by sin (D 14)’. She sees God feeding us in this way as we come to the Crucified Christ and feed at Christ’s opened side or breast. (Catherine is applying striking feminine imagery to Christ and his saving work.)

God’s intention in the redemption then is not just to show respect to Divine honour or to declare us just but also and importantly to really heal us from sin and to actually give us life, life that comes from God. But this is done through the work of the cross and it is only the God-Man who is able to endure the bitterness and so feed us with its medicine. To what bitterness is she referring? It seems the bitterness must be suffering and indeed death itself.

The cross of Christ demonstrates both God’s love and Christ’s virtue and very importantly it also allows us to be formed in virtue. According to Catherine, it builds us up on the foundation of Christ’s love, shown in him freely suffering for us. We love God in return for God’s love for us, and so are called to move from a state of selfishness to one of selflessness, that is to a life of real love. A life given over to such love will produce a life of virtues, love being the mother of virtues. And virtues grow as they are tested. Suffering, difficulty and adversity test them and so a human can grow in virtues. Thus patience, for instance, which Catherine sees as being at the heart of charity ‘is not proved except in suffering (D 5)’; ‘Justice is not lessened but proved by the injustices of others … Likewise your kindness and mildness are revealed through gentle patience in the presence of wrath … Steadfast courage is tested when you have to suffer much from people’s insults and slanders … (D 8).’ To love perfectly is to accept anything from God, any adversity, and to do so with a response of love, full of such other virtues as are required to live such love.

(Citations are from Suzanne Noffke’s translation of Catherine’s Dialogue, SPCK, 1980)

22nd July

On Friday the 22nd July an act of terrorism took the lives of 77 people in Norway. 8 people were killed by a bomb in Oslo, but the greatest shock was the terror at Utøya, where 69 people were shot to death, mostly young boys and girls from the ages of 14 to 20 years old. I was participating as a leader in a family camp far from the dramas in Oslo and on Utøya. We were about to start on an overnight hiking trip with 14 children and four leaders. During the evening, news of the shocking numbers of killed struck us like a nightmare. Saturday morning, on the way down the mountain, I stood in front of 14 children and had to explain to them what had happened. It was painful to realize that these children were just like those who were victims on the island of Utøya.

From this moment, something happened in me, and something happened in the soul of the Norwegian people. The first reaction came immediately: State leaders, especially the prime minister Jens Stoltenberg, our king Harald V, and the government stood together with the same message: This act of violence provokes fear and anxiety. We are not going to let our minds and our decisions be driven by this fear. This public signal found its echo among the people. Two days after the killings I was crossing Oslo city by bus. On a wall surrounding a Kindergarten there was a sign: "We must stick together". This is what the Norwegian people have done. We have stuck together, wept together, talked together. 200,000 people met in front of the city hall in Oslo on Sunday the 24th, everyone carrying flowers in their hands.

The open acceptance of our human reactions, and the embracing attitude of fellowship and love have marked Norwegian society and the media. All this is quite different from what has been the reaction to similar events in some other countries. The public debate has often been marked and driven by fear, defense, with restrictions and more intense supervision of the society as result. This may be justified and necessary. Still, there are important questions a society must ask itself: Fear and anxiety or fellowship and solidarity? I believe that our national leaders have managed to stop or at least limit the evil spinning wheel that always follows fear: Anxiety engenders anxiety, violence engenders violence. The open manifestation of a tolerance and peace as the foundation for the political and democratic future has been a true blessing for our nation, and stands as an example for all in time to come.

In an article written in The Telegraph one week after the killings (29^th August), Anthony Browne claims that it is time for Norway to 'confront its racist demons (like GB has)', and he explains us that 'this tragedy marks the end of Norway’s innocence'. Yes, innocence is lost. But is this about racist demons? I do believe that it is about something worse. Finn Skårderud, a psychiatrist and well known Norwegian author says in an article in Dagbladet Magasinet on the 30th July that it is time to draw the attention to what’s going on in the lives of children. We see into their rooms and blindly trust the child when they assure us that everything is ok. Reality can sometimes be quite different. Here Skårderud touches a pathology engendered by our modern western society: Isolation. We have become a society that in its concern for welfare risks losing the basis of all human growth: Humanity. For humanity to grow we need both social contact and responsibility. Every human being needs to live in a human context. Without social interaction we become ill in mind. Anyone who enters such a condition will not be able to carry the social obligations that every human is to take, and may risk entering into an illusionary world where fundamental human ethical understandings are lost. This is what happened to Breivik a long time ago.

After 22nd July everybody demand that the government take action to prevent such horrors happening again. But we also, each one of us, are challenged. We all carry a responsibility to fight these pathological patterns. By engagement in our local society, and by confronting hateful attitudes, opinions and actions, we may take responsibility for the society we live in. If we don’t, we ourselves risk becoming responsible for the violence that surrounds us. We may not be able to save the world, but we are called to do what we can. Only through real relations can we create the humanism necessary for our common wellbeing. If we search for demons as Browne tends to do, we may easily spot the diabolic side of internet in this disaster. Breivik entered into a web of people he thought where his allies. He lived in false fellowship with catastrophic outcome. One of his inspiration sources, 'Fjordman', and many with him, will have to consider how their own statements have become part of the tragedy of the 22nd July.

One month after the tragedy another event took place that may be seen as reverse image of what happened in Norway. I'm thinking of the World Youth Days in Madrid. On an airport, almost 2 million young people met to pray and praise. This Catholic meeting based on love, respect and peace shows us that true fellowship is possible, and that it can reach all around the world. At the final Mass a group of about 200 Norwegians participated with black bands tied to their flags in solidarity with the memorial ceremony taking place in Norway the same day. It was a breathtaking celebration, showing the world how Catholics from all over the world commit themselves to the same God, carrying to the world a gospel that holds love, peace and truth as the foundation for our existence.

Flowers still fill the Church gates and the streets of Oslo; roses are often laid down with tears. The Norwegian people are still mourning. In a small, peaceful country, love has been challenged. And with it presents a challenge for the nation, and for each one of us. May God give us the strength to stand up for true human values in our society.