EURO 2021 - A Reflection

 

Last night the English football team lost to the Italians in the final of the Euro 2021 match. They had played well, and many had commented on the good example they were setting; yet, as a consequence, they have been abused and insulted. The appalling behaviour of some fans is the subject of criticism by government ministers and comments on this morning’s ‘Today’ programme on Radio 4. Yet it was the BBC who decided to schedule ‘The Darkest Hour’, a film about Churchill and plans for the evacuation of Dunkirk, on the eve of the match; a cynical piece of programme planning that left no room for doubting that this was another way of supporting ‘our boys’ and reminding the country that we beat the Nazis (and their Axis partner, Italy) in the end. The final against Italy was, therefore, to be  played out in the context of World War 2.

The media have been clearly involved in hyping the English team to a point of hysteria and must bear a large part of the blame for creating the climate where violence would break out. The BBC, whom I have supported and seen as a bulwark against popularism, is meant to be the ‘British’ Broadcasting Corporation but have acted as if England = Britain: no wonder many Scots (or Welsh) feel ignored and their place in the Union forgotten. For some days more than half the 'national' news broadcasts were dovoted to football ignoring the fact this is mean to be about all the news and not just a particular sport. The popularist excitement and expectation created by the media should be of concern and I had expected more of that broadcaster created by Lord Reith to set an example to the whole nation, one which would uphold certain standards in broadcasting. Yet, in the past decade or so, its quality has diminished as it has sought to ‘reflect the nation’ and has now shown just how ignorant are some of its present producers and executives. I hope the BBC will help us reflect on the place of football in national life and remind people that it is just another sporting game – and consider how they need to regain their own integrity if they are to fulfil their responsibility.

Question Time - or Pantomime?

I watched last night’s ‘Question Time’ with mounting incredulity.  I have looked forward to this programme for many years as an opportunity of listening to politicians and others offering serious debate on topical issues.  It began in 1979 with a panel of four guests, usually one member from each of the three major parties and another public figure, for example non-governmental organisation directors, newspaper columnists, or religious leaders (the first broadcast included the-then Archbishop of Liverpool). I have come to accept that the BBC now only invite ‘guests from the worlds of politics and the media’ to take part but last night’s programme holds out the prospect that the programme editors have decided it needs to be dumbed-down even more.  As if having one egoistic, opinionated panel member was not enough, we were given two.  Melanie Phillips’ unregulated, vitriolic outburst against the audience was disgusting and I am tempted to wonder if she was encouraged to be so provocative.  Russell Brand behaved as if he was appearing on a BBC3 programme for teenagers.  His main concern seemed to be self-promotion by playing to the gallery.  His, frequently, arrogant, shallow responses hardly moved one to a deeper understanding of the questions posed and could have come from the mouth of anyone who reacts to issues rather than reflects on them.

The belief that the BBC has decided to dumb-down its programmes was enforced last night and, like others, I wonder if QT will descend into a pantomime.  After a recent broadcast from Scotland the Electoral Reform Society (ERS) wrote to the BBC to complain about the lack of balance on the programme stating that: "Not only does the selection of panellists fail to represent the make-up of Scottish politics, but it also seems to be aimed more at pantomime than serious debate."  Last night’s programme reinforced that comment.

Russell Brand was banned at one point by the BBC for his appalling behaviour but the Governors seem happy, now, to promote him by including him in a growing list of popular entertainers whose views are considered worthy of inclusion in what was once a serious programme.  As Simon Kelner said in ‘The Independent’ (February3rd 2013):  ‘Is this what has happened to public discourse in Britain? Has Twitter bred a generation for whom anything but a soundbite requires too much concentration? And is everyone given a voice, no matter whether they've got anything to say or not?  I remember the time, not so very long ago, when ‘Question Time’ was reflective of serious national debate, and was a flagship current affairs programme. You'd have four serious politicians and a wild card, a journalist with a viewpoint or a notable public figure, and the exchanges would be informed, elucidatory and often entertaining. … (now it’s) All heat, no light, and precious little nuance. ‘  How true.  And how sad.

THE RAPE OF EVE

Having watched the past two episodes of ‘Silent Witness’ (‘Trust’ and ‘True Love Waits’) I am deeply concerned at the level of violence against women portrayed in these.  In the first there were scenes of violent humiliation and degradation of women victims and the second featured knife attacks, physical brutality, gun-whipping and a woman being scalded with boiling water over a prolonged period.

Whilst understanding that this series uses violence and graphic, often shocking imagery for dramatic effect and recognising the quality of much of the production, I was left deeply troubled by what appeared to be an over-emphasis on these in relation to women to the point that seemed to border on the salacious.

Perhaps my own experience of knowing women who have been raped and the devastating effect this has had on them has sensitised me.  Also, these episodes were broadcast in the aftermath of global attention to the brutal rape of women in India and reflection of the way in which violence against women and girls is still a widespread problem in our own country.  The Government recently stated that 1 in 4 women will suffer domestic violence in their lifetime (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime/violence-against-women-girls/strategic-vision/) and has made it clear that it seeks to act to prevent this. 

I am unclear as to what such levels of violence in ‘Silent Witness’ is meant to achieve.  As someone who finds violence offensive I recognise that it cannot be to me or others who share similar feelings.  Therefore I wonder if it must be directed to those who do not find themselves troubled by violence and, if so, what effect this has on them. 

My concern is that as violence against women (or, of course, anyone) becomes a norm on television it inevitably has a desensitising effect as reported by the Oxford Journal Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience (19^th October, 2010): ‘Watching violent films, TV programmes or video games desensitises teenagers, blunts their emotional responses to aggression and potentially promotes aggressive attitudes and behaviour.’   I believe these latest episodes of ‘Silent Witness’ have moved from using violence with ‘high production values and an original and well-plotted storyline.’ (BBC Editorial Guidelines) to something that is of greater concern as society reflects on how violence against women is to be tackled.  I believe programme makers and editors have to accept that television has a role to play in the way violence is regarded.

31st SUNDAY IN ORDINARY TIME

“Be silent, still, aware,
for there, within your heart,
the Spirit is at prayer.
Open and receive,
heart-wisdom.
Christ”

INTRODUCTION
There can be few people (especially readers of the Daily Mail) who are unaware, and probably have a view about, the fiasco that has enveloped the BBC this past week. The broadcast of Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand’s phone call, closely followed by the disgusting comments about the Queen on ‘Mock the Week’, has had enormous repercussions and raised serious issues about ‘taste and decency’ in the media. What are the boundaries that broadcasters should not cross? Just because a Radio 2 audience might be younger than those who listen to Radio 4, or those who listen to ‘Mock the Week’ are assumed to like outrageous content, does that mean broadcasters should pander to our least reputable instincts? Maybe. As one member of the public said when asked to comment, “I try to teach my children not to swear, to be respectful to others and so on, but my efforts are undermined by what they are exposed to by some of the programmes to which they listen.”

Our society is exposed to a vast range of communicators and I realise it is hard for many parents to know how they can nurture their children with decent values. Clearly, for some, the church provides one means to help support their efforts.

I mention all this because our readings today touch on questions of standards of behaviour for Christians as we seek to help create a civilised society. St. Paul, in his letter to Christians in the Thessalonica, reminds them that he has sought to live a ‘blameless’ life. Jesus, in a different context, satirizes the Pharisees and warns people not to look up to people who cannot be trusted, reminding them that the only person to look to – the only ‘father’ who matters – is our Father in heaven.

Now I always blush with a sense of embarrassment when I hear Jesus’ words: You must call no one on earth father. OK. In Jesus’ time no one did call clergy Father. Called them Rabbi, or Teacher. So does that mean we can’t call anyone ‘father’, or ‘dad’. And what about ‘Mother’?

Why did Jesus make such a sweeping statement?

One way to approach a particular passage of scripture is by asking ourselves two questions.
Firstly, “What’s going on here?” That would mean delving a little deeper. And, secondly, “What does this mean for us?” What’s the good news for us? So, firstly, what’s going on here?

Once again, Jesus expresses his anger at the Pharisees, that group of pious Jews who put great emphasis on traditional beliefs and practices. But they also sought to make the love of God and love of neighbor the chief commandments. However, many Pharisees of Jesus’ time went further and sought to make their way of life even more distinctive. The Pharisees whom Jesus satirizes attempted to keep themselves in a state of purity at all times. They were scrupulous in their behavior and took great care not to come in contact with any source of defilement.

In today’s gospel lesson, Jesus is not criticizing those who try faithfully to keep the Law. He is speaking about those who forget what really mattered in the Law – not just keeping the rules but loving God and neighbor by seeking to exercise justice and mercy and faithfulness. And he is speaking to those who work hard at keeping the letter of the law while forgetting about the spirit of the law. Jesus criticizes the Pharisees because they don’t practice what they preach; and, in so doing, Jesus, and others like him, reminds us all of the need to practice what we preach. So, the next question is ‘What does this mean for us?’

Well, it’s a challenge to rethink our primary relationship. Yet again he is pressing home the need all human beings have of getting their relationship with God right so that all other relationships will flow from that.

THE SPIRITUALITY OF HOLINESS
In the wake of the controversy about standards in the BBC, we are also in the midst of the great season of the saints. Yesterday we celebrated All Saints and tomorrow we will commemorate the Holy Souls. These two great celebrations of all who rest and rejoice in the Love of God are annual reminders that we belong to another world as well as this one – to the world of God’s kingdom which we are invited to enter.

Yesterday at Mass I read out some words of the late, great Cistercian, Thomas Merton: ‘For me to be a saint means to be myself. The problem with sanctity is, in fact, the problem of finding out who I am and of discovering my true self.’

This is what it means to be a Christian. To want to discover my true identity. Are we not more than so-called comedy programmes reflect us as being? People whose humour is susceptible to mockery, jibe, insult and humiliation. If so, we have cause to be ashamed.

But religion reminds us that we were created to overcome our lower nature and discover the beauty of our true selves. As Merton went on to say: ‘God leaves us free to be whatever we like. … We may be true or false, the choice is ours. We may wear now one mask and now another, and never, if we so desire, appear with our true face. But we cannot make these choices with impunity. Causes have effects, and if we lie to ourselves and to others, then we cannot expect to find truth and reality whenever we happen to want them. If we have chosen the way of falsity we must not be surprised that truth eludes us when we finally come to need it!’

The Saints are those men and women – sometimes quite awkward and difficult people – who, realising the hollowness of their lives, seek to be real before God. They aren’t simpering, holier-than-thou people of no earthly use. They are women and men who have realised their ‘hollowness’ and want to let God be God in their lives. People who are not necessarily ‘good’ or ‘nice’ but people who, realising their earthiness and shallowness who want to be touched and filled by God.

As someone once said, ‘The test of Catholic Christianity is not whether it can make good men better, but whether it can make bad men holy.’

CONCLUSION
In coming to Mass and sharing in the celebration of these mysteries, we are invited to enter into the communion of saints who are constantly present to us as we seek to draw closer to the mystery of God. We may not always realise that this is the edge of the Mystery we call God, but it is a fact. And only he who sees, with the inner eye of the soul, will open his heart to be filled with the glory of this God-mystery. The Holy Gifts that are offered, the Bread of Christ’s Body and the Wine of His Blood, are offered to fill our open mouths and empty hearts with a taste of the glory that is ours for the asking. Our spiritual being needs nurturing and caring for, else it will lie dormant and be prone to the myriad influences that shape us but will never grow to the fullness for which we have the potential.

And it is the duty of your priests – your ‘Fathers’ and ‘Mothers’ in God – to encourage you to deepen your being-in-God.

These final days of the Christian Year, from All Saints to Advent, are full of reminders of this and present us with the opportunity of saying a deeper ‘yes’ to God. This House of Prayer is filled with his presence: there is nothing, now, to separate you from the love of God in Jesus Christ and His saints.

Amen