Strange criticism

James Melody kindly posted a link to my post about the Mandatum to Facebook, with a complimentary comment.

A chap called Ruari McCallion, whom I have yet to have the pleasure of meeting, quoted me and added a comment, thus:

"The second is that it risks confirming a modern anthropological error: that male and female are trivial, not essential, differences. It risks appearing to bow at the altar of a modern understanding of what it means to be a woman (or a man); an understanding that sees contraception, promiscuity, and abortion as stepping stones along the road to true equality." 

You might think that's the best you've read on the subject so far; I fear I must respectfully disagree, James. Ivereigh was markedly less excitable; maybe he has a less fertile imagination?

I like to model my response to criticism on that of PG Wodehouse, about which I have blogged before.  I am glad, though slightly bemused, that Ruari found that post, and (I assume) in particular the paragraph he quoted, to be both exciting and imaginative. 

Yet I also gather (for I am a perceptive sort, under my hearty bluster) that these were the very reasons he disagreed with James' positive assessment of my comments; and that Ivereigh's dullness and lack of imagination were in fact reasons to prefer his take to mine.

All of which is very strange, when you think about it.

I may, of course, be quite wrong in my analysis in the post he is criticising; but nowhere does Ruari say where that is. I have already said what I think of Ivereigh's piece, so won't dwell on that, other than to say I think it was a more imaginative take on reality than mine.

But it does strike me as fairly typical of many such discussions that rather than dwell on the arguments, the stress is laid on the (perceived) tone.

My argument in that paragraph is straightforward, I thought. But maybe I assumed too much and should unpack it a bit.

We are confronted in our time with two very different understandings of the meaning of male and female. On the one hand the Church has always seen these are inherent in the meaning of the creation of man. The complementarity of man and woman is part of the divine plan, and their unity in the nuptial union is the means of the generation of new life, the establishment of the family, the mirror of Christ's relationship with the Church, and so on. Man and woman are equal in dignity, yet distinct in nature. This difference is one of the reasons that it is not in any way unjust that they have different roles they may legitimately fulfil: motherhood is only for women; fatherhood, and also priesthood, only for men. This is a deep and fundamental truth which we continue to understand in more depth as the Church reflects and develops her teaching (not least under the papacy of St John Paul II).

On the other hand, the contemporary progressive view is that male and female are somewhat superficial differences; some go so far as to say that they are largely social constructs. Equality must mean parity in all things and anything that may prevent women from aspiring to anything a man may do is ipso facto unjust. Thus contraception, promiscuity, and abortion come to be seen, as I remarked originally, as 'stepping stones along the road to true equality.'

I think that is fairly uncontentious, (though perhaps I am naive). Therefore I conclude that the part which Ruari finds imaginative and exciting is to say that the arbitrary change of the Church's liturgy to include women in a rite that was formerly exclusive to men 'risks appearing to bow at the altar of a modern understanding of what it means to be a woman (or a man).' Yet, again, I think that risk is real and evident. It seems to me precisely how modern liberal-minded people will interpret the Holy Father's change. 'Ah, the Church is making one more, slow, belated step to recognising what we all know: that women and men are equal in every way, and that all discrimination against women is a legacy of misguided (or worse) patriarchy.'

But because Ruari never actually addresses anything I said, it is hard to know if I am on the right track here. 

Entering the controversy

Actually, there should be no debate about this. Bertie Wooster went to Magdalen. He says so quite clearly in the Code of the Woosters. 

Yes, I know what Chuffy said (that once after a bump supper, Bertie 'insisted that he was a mermaid and wanted to dive into the college fountain and play the harp.')  And I know, of course, that there is no fountain in Magdalen.

But if you are going to take the word of Chuffy, who was undoubtedly pie-eyed on the occasion and has almost certainly got confused in the detail of the affair - well, you might as well doubt that Peter Wimsey was a Balliol man.

The case is closed and I will tolerate no further discussion.

A Madeline Bassett Moment?...

I was out walking under a beautiful starry sky the other night, saying the Joyful Mysteries.  It occurred to me that the stars, which proclaimed Our Lord’s Nativity, could in fact have been created specifically for that purpose.  Indeed, I saw them asa a firework display, put on by the Father for the birth of His Son, and graciously extended through time, both before and since, so that we could all enjoy the experience.

But then another thought occurred to me: were they not a crown, created for Our Lady, which she will wear for all eternity?

A difficult dilemma, you will agree.

But then I remembered, such either/or thinking is not the Catholic way.  Why should not the Father at once create a firework display for His Son’s birth, and in that same creative act, make it simultaneously a crown for His Son’s mother?

So that was all right then.

And if you don’t know who Madeline Bassett is or why she’s relevant, you had better read Right Ho, Jeeves, before you dare trespass on my blog again!

Liturgical Latin 2

So, before we go any further, let's test your knowledge from last time.

Translate the following Latin text.

Pater noster, qui es in caelis, sanctificetur nomen tuum. Adveniat regnum tuum. Fiat voluntas tua, sicut in caelo et in terra. Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie, et dimitte nobis debita nostra sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris. Et ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo. Amen.


There, that wasn't too bad, was it?  See how easy it is really!


This week, we are going to look at another important prayer, which you really should know by heart.


Here's a recording of it: 

Ave Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecum.  Benedicta tu in mulieribus, et benedictus fructus ventris tui Iesus.  Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus, nunc et in hora mortis nostrae. Amen.


So again, we will look at that one word at a time, focussing mainly on vocabulary.


Ave - Hail.

Maria - Mary.

gratia - grace (and hence gracious, gratitude etc)

plena - full (hence plenary, plenitude, plenipotentiary etc)

Dominus - the Lord (hence dominant, dominate etc)

tecum - is really two words run together (they did that, you know!) 

te - thee, you (singular) (a varient of tuum tua etc which we met last week)

cum - with (as in Horton-cum-Studley and other English place names, and in Wodehouse 'All you have to do,’ I said, ‘is to carry on here for a few weeks more, and everything will be oojah-cum-spiff.'  Very Good Jeeves)

Benedicta - blessed (hence benediction)

tu - thou, you (singular) again, different form

in - in (we've had that before so you should have recognised it!)

mulieribus - women

et - and (we've had that before, too, so you should have recognised it, as well!)

benedictus - blessed, again (masculine form)

fructus - fruit (hence also fructify, fructuate,  etc)

ventris - womb (hence, ultimately, ventricle)

tui - thy, your (singular) (another variant)

Iesus - Jesus. Note the initial I - Latin did not have J. Hence INRI on crucifixes: Iesus Nazarenus, Rex Iudaeorum: Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews)

Sancta - Holy, saint (same root as sanctificetur which we had last week: hence saint, sanctify etc)

Mater - Mother (like Pater, father, which we had last week; hence matriarchal, maternal etc)

Dei - God.  Hence deity, deify etc.

ora - pray. Hence oratory, oration, etc

pro - for. Hence pro-life.

nobis - us (we've had that before, too, so you should have recognised it, as well!)

peccatoribus - sinners.

nunc - now

hora - hour (it's tough, this Latin lark)

mortis - death. Hence mortuary etc

nostrae - our (like noster in Pater noster)

--

I think that will do for this week.  Remember to do your homework, as I'll be testing you again next weekend.

And I think we may dive into some grammar next week, too.

nostrar

ho

ventrr

Responding to criticism

For what it’s worth, I like P G Wodehouse’s approach. When Sean O'Casey dubbed him English Literature’s performing flea, he took it as a compliment, pointing out that all the performing fleas he had worked with had been stout little troupers.  He even called a volume of his letters about writing Performing Flea.

In the introduction to Summer Lightning, he wrote: “A certain critic -- for such men, I regret to say, do exist -- made the nasty remark about my last novel that it contained 'all the old Wodehouse characters under different names.' He has probably by now been eaten by bears, like the children who made mock of the prophet Elisha: but if he still survives he will not be able to make a similar charge against Summer Lightning. With my superior intelligence, I have out-generalled the man this time by putting in all the old Wodehouse characters under the same names. Pretty silly it will make him feel, I rather fancy.”

Oxymoronic

I tend not to follow what is going on in the Anglican communion.  I have enough trouble getting my head around what’s happening in unam sanctam et Catholicam apostolicam ecclesiam.

However, following some blog links in an idle moment (doubtless there was pressing work to be done...) I ended up at Symon Hill’s blog.  

His name alone should have warned me.  

Listen Bertie, said Aunt Dahlia earnestly, I’m an older woman than you are - well you know what I mean - and I can tell you a thing or two.  And one of them is that no good can come of association with anything labelled Gwladys, or Ysobel, or Ethyl, or Mabelle, or Kathryn.

And I’m sure if she had been warning Bertie off unsuitable men, she would have include Symon.  (Whilst that is not strictly relevant to my main point, I do believe that what this - and indeed every - blog needs, is more and better quotations from P G Wodehouse).

Anyway, Symon was very pleased with himself because his (and others’) blogging had got a chap who thinks he’s a bishop to withdraw an endorsement from a booklet by some other chap called Stephen Green.

I don’t know much about Green, though he has got my email address from somewhere and sends me stuff for my junk mail folder on an occasional basis.

But what had really got in among Symon was that Green pointed out that the relatively recent law creating an offense of marital rape was not in keeping with the Bible or a Christian understanding of marriage.  Symon, of course, is not alone: people have been tweeting in outrage about 'publicly endorsing rape'; which is a misrepresentation of what the argument is about.

As I say, I am no expert on what members of the Anglican communion believe (though I am not sure many of them are either).  

However, in my understanding from a Catholic perspective, marital rape is quite simply an oxymoron; it is not possible.

Before everyone faints with horror, let me be quite clear.  I do not condone a husband forcing himself on his wife (or vice versa, come to that).  I certainly do not condone any force, threats or violence in that context.  Indeed, the standards of love expected of either spouse are very high indeed: husbands must be prepared to give their lives, not just sacrifice their lust, for the love of their wives.  Wives, likewise, must love their husbands.   My point is very specific: as I understand it, (and of course I am open to correction if I have misunderstood) the nature of the sacrament of marriage includes giving consent to marital intercourse, irrevocably.  Rape is intercourse without consent. Therefore in the context of a Christian marriage, it is not possible: consent has been given.  Use of threats, force or violence in that context are  sinful, and also may well be criminal: but they are not rape.

If I am not condoning the use of force or threats (which I most certainly am not) why am I concerned about the designation of forced intercourse within a marriage as rape?

The answer is that I believe we are in the midst of a concerted attempt totally to de-couple both sex and pro-creation from marriage; and also to re-define marriage as well as re-write the sexual norms we have inherited from Christendom.  Therefore it is important to be clear that as Catholics, we understand that the only legitimate use of human sexuality is in a valid marriage, open to life.  Likewise, it is important that we educate our children correctly about marriage, so that they are able to contract valid marriages and know what they are committing themselves to, when they say ‘for better or for worse...’ etc.  




UPDATE: see subsequent post

A good read

In fact 'a good read' is understating it.

I have been re-reading Mons Ronald Knox's sermons on Our Lord's parables and have been bowled over: his insights are so profound and challenging - and parables that I thought I knew well (and some that one almost passes over as one-liners) take on whole new depths of meaning. The worrying thing is that I am RE-reading, and have clearly forgotten everything I learned first time around... Live and don't learn, that's my motto.

(Also re-reading PG Wodehouse Golf Stories - less spiritually rich, perhaps, but wonderfully crafted!)

How did I miss that?

Avid readers of this blog (if such there be) may have noticed that I'm a Wodehouse fan.

Recently, I was re-reading Evelyn Waugh's Scoop, and in the closing pages came up short. I read this: 'they had both, in another age, known a man named Bertie Wodehouse-Bonner.'

I must have read Scoop at least three times before, and have no recollection of this reference! I'm astonished.

PS A prize of four Marian anthems (.pdf files) to anyone who can name either of the characters who had known Bertie Wodehouse-Bonner without looking them up.

PPS No, don't cheat! If you want the anthems anyway, just tell me.

The Original Jeeves...

I learned from yesterday's Times that P G Wodehouse named the immortal Jeeves after Private Percy Jeeves, who died in the Somme on July 22, 1916. Before the war, he played cricket for Warwickshire as a fast-medium bowler, and was much admired by Wodehouse.

It astonishes me that this is only the second mention of Wodehouse on this blog - must do better!

The Dawkins Delusion

I have been reading Dawkins' 'The God Delusion', and I have to say I am disappointed. I thought I would find an intellectual argument against God, which would sharpen my thinking. Instead, it is, so far, a very poorly argued set of prejudices. As a work by a serious scientist, it is very unscientific, both in approach and argument.

There are some things I like about it: he speaks highly of P G Wodehouse, so he can't be all bad. And I like his robust and intemperate approach - very refreshing in these times of political correctness: at least you know precisely where he stands.

But where he stands is such a silly place. He ridicules theists for assigning to 'mystery' things which are beyond our comprehension, but then does exactly the same thing himself, with the pseudo-scientific term 'singularity'.

I will return to this theme as I read - and reflect - more.

But one thing is clear to me: Cardinal Newman was right when he wrote:
“We can believe what we choose. We are answerable for what we choose to believe.”