THE LIGHT SHINES IN THE DARKNESS AND THE DARKNESS DID NOT OVERCOME IT

Sacred Heart,
Burning in the darkness,
Enflame my heart
With your light and life.

TODAY we are reminded that we have left the European Union.  Some will wave flags; others lament that the vison Sir Winston Churchill had of a ‘United States of Europe’ is, for the time being, dead and buried.  It’s worth reading what he actually said in a famous speech at the University of Zurich three days before I was born – here is an extract (the full speech is here): 

“We must build a kind of United States of Europe (in order) to re-create the European family, or as much of it as we can, and to provide it with a structure under which it can dwell in peace, in safety and in freedom. …  Small nations will count as much as large ones and gain their honour by a contribution to the common cause.”

That enlightened call to build a union of hope hope after years of war and centuries of conflict has fallen away and, coupled with the pandemic, it can seem that there’s a shadow over not only Europe at this time but over the whole world.  Words of hope can feel just like that when faced with suffering and loss.

But I’m reminded of other words, words from John’s gospel set for today’s Mass: ‘The Light shines in the darkness and the darkness did not overcome it’.  In the opening verses of his ‘Good News’, John directs attention to the most important news Christianity needs to share, and he does so in the context of a desert, a desert in which John the Baptist appeared which can stand as a metaphor for what many are experiencing at this time.

In a recent article by Fr. Aiden Nicholls OP which appeared in the present issue of the ‘Fairacres Chronicle’, journal of the Sisters of the Love of God, he writes: 

‘A voice cries in the Wilderness, “Prepare a way for the Lord: make his paths straight”.  John the Baptist realises this prophesy by speaking of Jesus: … John can identify the desert of the human condition, can put his finger on the spot where it really hurts, Jesus and Jesus alone can do anything about it.  John knows what we are like: he knows the heart of man; Jesus does too, he had his own wilderness experience; but Jesus is also the heart of God translated into human flesh.  He is not just a human heart he is the Sacred Heart.  And if he is God made man, then he is someone who can reach into our interior desert; by his influence, by his grace, he can reach me in this most cut off of all lands, more cut off than any pole or any jungle’ (p.31).

As we enter a New Year outside of that Union to which we’ve belonged for half a century and continue to face a pandemic that poisons both body and soul that message of John, that the Light has come which darkness cannot overcome, is unique and needs to be held and shared – for in Him there is no darkness at all. 

Sacred Heart,
Burning in the darkness,
Enflame my heart
With your light and life.

_____________________

John-Francis Friendship
December 31st, 2021

COMPASSION AND COMPETITION

My interest in compassion was awakened by Brexit. Not just the appalling way in which the worst aspects of our humanity became apparent – stirring mistrust and dislike of the foreigner and violence and fear of refugees, but the way in which appeal seemed to be made to our baser, selfish instincts.

Many of the popular political figures adopted an attitude of ‘us first’, which chimes with ‘me first’.  It’s not easy to change these basic instincts that appeal to our ‘selfish gene’ (if there is one) and the pull of selfishness can be strong.  But the way in which Europe seemed to be encouraging member states to set aside such attitudes and work for the common good seemed laudable. And it wasn’t as if others weren’t invited to ‘join the club’; indeed, it appears that as poorer European nations were welcomed into the ‘club ‘so people began to encourage us to fear them and have them excluded.  Any notion that our country was shaped by ‘Christian values’ was thrown out of the window and whilst the notion was appealed to, it became apparent that it was for tribal reasons. 

Compassion for the other was undermined by an appeal to fear, mistrust and dislike.  All this seems connected to the pull of individualism and appeals to that primary individualistic motive which is connected with the pre-adult phase in human development.  People are encouraged to pursue private goals rather than the common good, promoted by those who are attracted by a certain brand of politics.  Any concern for the wider good is countered by the promise of greater wealth - something Christians in particular should beware.

There's ano obvious danger here, one that much Catholic social teaching warns us about

Wecan seethe wider implications as those driven by the this individualistic creed show scant concern for those in need unless it serves their interests.  Competitiveness trumps cooperation and our moral imperative becomes forgotten .

WHO'S FOR A UNITED STATES OF EUROPE?

Wouldn’t it be amazing to discover that a Tory of the stature of Sir Winston Churchill had actually advocated a Union of the States of Europe?

Well, of course, he did, even though he had been against the idea before the horrors of the Second World War seem to have caused his change of mind.  In a speech at the University of Zurich in 1946 he said: 'We must build a kind of United States of Europe.  In this way only will hundreds of millions of toilers be able to regain the simple joys and hopes which make life worth living.' (http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/astonish.html.  It’s true he didn’t envisage the UK joining immediately:  ‘The British Government have rightly stated that they cannot commit this country to entering any European Union without the agreement of the other members of the British Commonwealth.  We all agree with that statement.  But no time must be lost in discussing the question with the Dominions and seeking to convince them that their interests as well as ours lie in a United Europe.’  But he clearly saw the benefit of the union of erstwhile warring states, something that had first been argued for after WW1 most notably by the Conservative MP, Sir Arthur Salter (1st Baron Salter GBE KCB PC: 1881 – 1975) in his book ‘The United States of Europe’ (1923).

Ah, the wonders of history!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln4SRnt4VE0

MAY THEY ALL BE ONE

Today we feel the wind beneath our wings
Today  the hidden fountain flows and plays
Today the church draws breath at last and sings
As every flame becomes a Tongue of praise.
This is the feast of fire, air, and water
Poured out and breathed and kindled into earth.
The earth herself awakens to her maker
And is translated out of death to birth.
The right words come today in their right order
And every word spells freedom and release
Today the gospel crosses every border
All tongues are loosened by the Prince of Peace
Today the lost are found in His translation.
Whose mother-tongue is Love, in every nation.

 Malcolm Guite

PENTECOST witnesses the reversal of Babel when peoples divided became united.  The story of Babel concerned how God divided and scattered humankind so we could not become like God.  Yet our dis-union and separation was never God’s final purpose which Christ summed up in those words: ‘May they all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us’ (John 17:21)

With the Referendum in just over five weeks’ time I am struck by this thought.  There seems a constant tussle between two extremes, individualism and collectivism.  Are we primarily called to be individuals who can exist without the other?  Or do we belong together?  In upport of Individualism the 19^th cent. American social reformer and statesman, Frederick Douglass, wrote:  ‘We are distinct persons, and are each equally provided with faculties necessary to our individual existence. In leaving you, I took nothing but what belonged to me, and in no way lessened your means for obtaining an honest living. Your faculties remained yours, and mine became useful to their rightful owner.’  Whilst David Callahan of the think tank Demos recently stated that: “America works best when its citizens put aside individual self-interest to do great things together—when we elevate the common good,” 

This notion of the ‘common good’ having the greater moral claim is what has inspired society down the ages.  It has been the motivation of the Commonwealth and is a central pillar of Catholic social teaching.   John XXIII describes it as ‘the sum total of conditions of social living, whereby persons are enabled more fully and readily to achieve their own perfection.’ Mater et Magistra (1961).  It differs from pursuing the ‘greatest good for the greatest number’ in Christian terms because ‘the pursuit of the common good entrusts, both to the government and the Church, care for the greatest good of all persons, not just the greatest possible number. No individual is excluded from the common good. It is also therefore linked to the ideas of human dignity and authentic and integral human development, making them central aims of all societies.’ (Catholic Social Teaching.org.uk)    The common good also provides a balance against too strong an individualism by emphasising the social aspect of the human person.  Pentecost witnesses to God’s affirmation that we are created to be alone (Gen. 2:18) but, as difficult as it is, to discover ourselves in relation to the other. 

A reflection on the way in which we are ‘Better Together’ a certain Michael Gove said in March 2014: “Think globally.  Think what would happen if Scotland and England broke up. Do we think that Vladimir Putin would think, ‘Oh that's a pity’?  Or would he think, ‘Ah look, the second principal beacon of liberty in the world is a little more unstable. That plinth has been broken. I'm in a stronger position to do what I want’?” And, just 18 months ago, Boris Johnson wrote: “… we are on the verge of an utter catastrophe for this country. In just 10 days’ time … a fundamental part of our identity will have been killed. We will all have lost a way of … explaining ourselves to the world. We are on the verge of trashing our global name and brand in an act of self-mutilation …” And so on, and so forth, until this heartrending conclusion: “I am praying that we will wake from this sleepwalk to tragedy; and that the Scots vote no to divorce, and yes to Britain, the greatest political union ever.” (Daily Telegraph, September 10th, 2014)  Whatever the difficulties and problems, choosing the path of separation whilst recognising that this signals disunion seems, to me (and, not long ago, Messers Gove and Johnson), an act of wilful vandalism. 

As a race we seem to have a propensity to heed the call to self-centrism.  Today’s Feast of Pentecost s is not only the birth of the Church but, through Christ, completes humanity’s wholeness.  It is ‘a fulfilment of the prophecies that God would gather his scattered people together.  It is a decisive recasting in anthropological terms of human foundational order.’  (James Alison)  And whilst this recasting is a Godly act and can never be fully achieved in social terms, nonetheless it would seem that to seek to do otherwise, to seek to fragment society, is not what God intends for Creation but is, rather, to heed the Accuser who delights in preventing that unity which is in the mind of God.  As Pope Benedict affirmed on the Solemnity of Pentecost 2012: “Pentecost is the feast of union, comprehension and human communion. We can all see that in our world, although we are increasingly close to one another with the development of the means of communication and geographical distances seem to be disappearing, understanding and communion between people is both superficial and problematic.”

‘IF A CLOD BE WASHED AWAY, EUROPE IS THE LESS’

 

“I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!”  So declared a member of the audience on Question Time (14.04.16).  For me that cry summed up the theme of selfishness that seems to underlay so much of the Brexit campaign.  The desire not to have ‘Europe tell us what to do’; the appeal to fear of being overwhelmed by foreigners; the desire to ‘go it alone’ and the belief that we will be better off financially if we didn’t ‘pay millions’ to Europe (or in Overseas Aid) appeals to that ‘selfish gene’ in each of us which drives our desire for self-preservation and serves our own implicit interest.  Whilst Bexiters accuse those who wish to remain of employing the tactics of ‘Project Fear’, that would seem to be a projection of the very fear of the other that drives their desire to leave.

This should hardly be surprising given that the movement was driven by Nigel Farage and UKIP together with Tories like Ian Duncan Smith, Bill Cash and John Redwood, the Michael’s Gove and Howard, Nigel Farage - and George Galloway (worrying bedfellows) - many of whom carry extreme political views in their baggage.  And, despite his popularism Boris Johnson, that other leading Brexiteer, can hardly be described as having much of a social concern.  And should we also beware Zac Goldsmith’s tousled hair?

I find it deeply sad that this appeal to our self-interest appeals to so many.  But the campaign has at least identified the matter of whether we are called to simply satisfy our own self-interests or whether, as David Miliband recently pointed out, “The British question is not only one of what we get out of Europe.  It is also one of whether we want to shore up the international order, or contribute to its dilution and perhaps even destruction.”   

In an article in The Sunday Times (‘Brexit now and we will only have to Breturn to save a disintegrating Europe’: 21.02.16), the conservative historian Niall Fergusson recalled our history from the time of the Reformation and pointed out the dangers of being focussed on our relationship with the Continent and the way we have – literally at times – torn ourselves apart and ignored wider and more fundamental threats.  He noticed that our future seems to be caught up in an emotional reaction to matters such as how long a ‘Polish plumber will not be entitled to claim UK benefits’ and wondered why we had not learnt from Henry VIII’s refusal to listen to Cardinal Wolsey’s recognition that in the face of the threat from the Ottoman Empire, Britain belonged in Europe.  It is arguable that history is repeating itself in a worrying way.

So, at heart, is this the latest example of the existential struggle between whether it is better to stand alone or whether we are better together?   Are we simply individuals who have to co-exist or are we part of each other?   Was Margaret Thatcher right in saying that ‘there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families.’ (interview in Women’s Own, 1987)  St. Paul faced that question and answered it quite robustly when he observed: ‘For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ.  For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.  …  Indeed, the body does not consist of one member but of many.’ (1 Cor. 12:14)   And so, in spite of the worst excesses of the Reformation, Catholic Christianity has always proclaimed the importance of community.  As the great Bishop, Michael Ramsey, observed: “Individualism” …. has no place in Christianity and Christianity verily means its extinction.’  And he went on to perceptively observe:  ‘Yet through the death of “individualism” the individual finds himself.’ (‘The Gospel and the Catholic Church’: 1936 reissued 2009)

Behind Ramsey’s assertion lies a theology which is Catholic, not Protestant, in its understanding.  He stands in the tradition of another great Anglican, John Donne, who famously wrote ⁽¹⁾

No man is an island entire of itself; every man

                        is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
                        if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
                        is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
                        well as any manner of thy friends or of thine
                        own were; any man's death diminishes me,
                        because I am involved in mankind.
                      
                       And therefore never send to know for whom
                       the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

It seems we have not moved on from the 16^th century Reformation when individualism the cry went up: ‘The bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England’ (Article XXXVII).  Yet the world is a very different place to that in which the Reformation occurred although the struggle between Catholic and Protestant – those who wish to be part of the whole and those who want to go it alone – appears to lie behind much of the current debate.  

 

We are always better together – even though it comes at a cost.  Perhaps John Donne’s poem should have been sent to all households ….. 

___________________________________

⁽¹⁾ MEDITATION XVII: Devotions upon Emergent Occasion

A CONTINENT DIVIDED...

It is only a matter of days since the world recalled the outbreak of the Great War one hundred years ago.  Yet peace in Europe (or anywhere else in the world) remains fragile: daily we witness Russian troops making incursions into eastern Ukraine as fighting escalates and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso stated today that: "We may see a situation where we reach the point of no return".  And if this seems far from the shores of Britain, the remembrance that the First World War began with the assassination of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne in eastern Europe should make us stop and think.

At the same time as President Barossa is calling for Europe to "stand by its principles" before the crisis reaches a "point of no return" we, in Britain, are facing two opposing political developments: the forthcoming vote on Scottish independence and the rise of anti-EU rhetoric focussed by UKIP.  The latter seems fueled by two concerns, immigration and a perceived notion that the UK needs to become a ‘democratic, self-governing country once again (which)  can only be achieved by getting our nation out of the European Union and reasserting the sovereignty of Parliament’  (statement on UKIP website).  Whilst this seems to have growing popular support, not least amongst members of the Conservative Party, it is worth recalling in light of developments concerning the security of Europe why the nations of our continent began the process of coming together after the Second World War.  The overall aim of the EEC/EU, since its foundation in 1958, has been ‘to promote peace; the values of human rights; democracy; equality; the rule of law; and the well-being of its peoples. These values are the bedrock of the EU’s work and its role in the world.’  (Irish Dept. of Foreign Affairs)  Shortly after the end of the War Robert Schumann delivered a major speech in Strasbourg in which he spoke of the way that the nations of Europe needed to come together so that 'war (between France and Germany) becomes not merely unthinkable, but materially impossible.’ http://europa.eu/about-eu/basic-information/symbols/europe-day/schuman-declaration/index_en.htm   He went on to state that: ‘The European spirit signifies being conscious of belonging to a cultural family and to have a willingness to serve that community in the spirit of total mutuality, without any hidden motives of hegemony or the selfish exploitation of others.  The 19th century saw feudal ideas being opposed and, with the rise of a national spirit, nationalities asserting themselves.  Our century, that has witnessed the catastrophes resulting in the unending clash of nationalities and nationalisms, must attempt and succeed in reconciling nations in a supranational association.  This would safeguard the diversities and aspirations of each nation while coordinating them in the same manner as the regions are coordinated within the unity of the nation.’  When measured against the petty nationalistic rhetoric of UKIP and their supporters I find Schumann’s vision inspiring – and challenging.  Of course, unity has to begin somewhere – in this case as a Coal and Steel  Community (ECSC) – there has to be a greater vision than simply materialism.  As human beings we have an urge towards a union of hearts and minds, as expressed so eloquently by Schumann.  Yet these observations and this call to unity seems forgotten and even our political journalists and commentators, when questioning the narrowly focussed oratory of Farage and his supporters, fail to direct attention to this vision and call to live in peace and security.

It is, then, with some amazement that I hear many of those calling for the UK to leave the EU also demanding that the Scots remain part of the UK.  Clearly, what’s sauce for the goose isn't sauce for the gander!  Michael Gove, for example, seems to be a passionate supporter of the Union (of Scotland and Britain) but an equally passionate opposer of the Union (European).   And, whilst I cannot find a UKIP Policy on the matter (their website lists few actual policies) I note the passion with which Farage supports the Union (ditto Gove).  Here we seem to have a case of double-think or possibly, in psychological terms, cognitive-dissonance.  And whilst F. Scott Fitzgerald observed:  ‘intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" it seems more reasonable to assume he was referring to holding different views on the same subject rather than double-think! 

Christianity - catholic at least - has always believed that humankind belongs together and that our task is to work towards unity.  For our tendency towards separation, the pull to individualism, is strong as is the feeling that ‘I’m right – you must be wrong’.   As the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: ‘… if we pray the Our Father sincerely, we leave individualism behind, because the love that we receive frees us from it.  The "our" at the beginning of the Lord's Prayer, like the "us" of the last four petitions, excludes no one.   If we are to say it truthfully, our divisions and oppositions have to be overcome. (p.2792)  It is easier to fragment than unify, live apart than together, separate than integrate.  Yet fragmentation, living alone and separation cannot satisfy our deeper human need for belonging together.  Not for nothing was it that, on the eve of His passion and death, Jesus chose to pray – extensively – for the union of his disciples (John 17) for the lure of separation has been there since Eden but the call to union is the heavenly vision. 

Perhaps that is something we need to recall.

ARK OR YEAST? REFLECTIONS ON THE NATURE OF THE CHURCH (2)

The so-called ‘Elizabethan Settlement’ which shaped the Church of England as a National Church meant that Anglicanism developed tasked with including all who could affirm three simple norms: ‘The Scriptures and the Gospels, the Apostolic Church and the early Church Fathers’ (Being an Anglican: http://www.churchofengland.org/our-faith/being-an-anglican.aspx) and it is arguable that inclusivity has been the benchmark of the Church.

Yet there is a strong drive in human beings to define what belongs and exclude that which doesn’t.  We tend towards the lure of dualism: light and darkness, flesh and spirit, male and female, good and evil etc…  Yet Anglicanism has held within itself the tension of opposites: it is both catholic and protestant; a church both existing in and relating to the temporal and spiritual worlds. 

There is much in scripture which suggests that we should make clear distinctions between the ‘saved’ and the ‘damned’ (to put it at its most basic whilst acknowledging all the other dualistic distinctions provided by religion).  This approach appeals to those who need religion to provide a sense of security (and they are both within and outside the church), yet is fraught with danger.  It is interesting to note that the picture provided by scripture is not so simple.  In the Book of Job, for example, Satan is not located in Hell but is part of the Court of Heaven, which suggests that the writer understood the need for some kind of integration of ‘good’ and ‘evil’.  How does one live with such apparently opposing movements?  Some traditions have developed to exclude the ‘impure’ and these tend towards the Ark principle and, arguably, feed -  and reflect - similar social movements.  The genius of the Elizabethan Settlement was to try to include as many as possible for the opposite led to ruptures in society.  One sees this constantly at work: at national levels this is evident in conflicts over land (Israel/Palestine; Unionist/Republican in Northern Ireland; Islamic militants/the West etc.) whilst in the Church of England it is most particularly apparent in the way evangelicals are focussed into excluding gay and lesbians from the church (or, at least, its structures) together with the heated debate as to how those opposed to the ordination of women to the Episcopate can remain included in the church.  Arguably the current energy being focussed into a demand that Britain leave the EU is fed by this same desire to exclude what is perceived to be a threat to the ‘purity’ of the nation.

The expression of desire to recognise we lived in ‘One World’ which gained popularity twenty years or so ago seems to no longer hold the appeal it did. As we move towards an increasing sense of a living in a global society we also seem to be tending towards its opposite.  The idea of moving towards living together in one world where those who ‘have’ see it as their duty to aid those who ‘have not’, together with the concept of a universal (catholic) church seems to be in the decline.  The ‘pure’ nation state existing in isolation from other states, only relating to them insofar as is necessary entices more and more people.  Yet, in the face of the fact we do live in a world which, increasingly, realises we live or die together with which will the church side?