Dawn French, the comedian, was a “crab”; the actress Juliet Stevenson a “pongo”; the theatre director Fiona Lindsay, charged with the task of interviewing them both, a “fish-head”. Tarot cards, or the signs of the Zodiac? No, mesdames French, Stevenson and Lindsay were, to use an acronym much in evidence here, “brats” (British Regiment Attached Travellers), respectively the daughters of an RAF technician, an army man and a naval officer, and as such condemned to a nomadic childhood of yearly removals to a variety of military bases in Europe and, at certain junctures, thousands of miles beyond it.If the formative years outlined in Creative Forces (14 November) were peripatetic – the destinations included Cyprus, Germany and Au
21 November 2013, The Tablet
Creative Forces
Radio
Get Instant Access
Continue Reading
Register for free to read this article in full
Subscribe for unlimited access
From just £30 quarterly
Complete access to all Tablet website content including all premium content.
The full weekly edition in print and digital including our 179 years archive.
PDF version to view on iPad, iPhone or computer.
Already a subscriber? Login
User Comments (12)
Visit my blogger page via : http://adamsvera.blogspot.com/
Visit my blogger page via : http://adamsvera.blogspot.com/
I am Michael l am from usa, and i am here on this site to give thanks to Dr. omuze the spell caster for the good work he did in getting my relationship back on track and now, i am now a family man. Myself and my lover had some dispute which lead to our break up.wow this man is a genus since then my life have change authentically through the help of Dr. omuze i was able to get her back within 48 hours for this reason i will be dropping this contact for any type of situation you might be facing just through this contact and information you can reach him thanks. Dr. omuze on this site for those that need his help to contact him on via email; dr.omuzegreatestspellcaster@gmail.com
'.. the rigorist position has been upheld by the Church for a very long time. It is not born out of any desire to be judgmental – on the contrary it derives from a desire to be merciful and protective of any person finding themselves in such situation.'
I'm wondering how merciful it is to make a judgement in advance about someone who is not the perpetrator of divorce but a victim. This person, out of shame and embarrassment at having 'failed', does not think of the going to the priest to be told what they already know, that they are barred from the Eucharist, because they are civilly divorced and and in mortal sin if re-married civilly. We might not know the full reason why they did this but according to rigorists, these victims of divorce did not follow the rules and are barred no matter their circumstances. Only living like brother and sister can mitigate this state according to familiaris consortio.
And then we wonder why it is that many cease going to Church with their children and indeed drop out completely. When I look round my Church these days there are more elderly and Eastern Europeans in the pews than young or middle aged British couples with teenage children. That tells its own story.
We have to meet people where they are in the realities of their lives. It is not a matter of changing doctrine changing our tone and our attitudes towards and care of many people who are invariably, very hurt even damaged.
• Is Eucharistic sacrilege committed when someone who’s soul is stained by mortal sin consumes the Eucharist?
• For someone whose objective actions lead a priest to subjectively determine they carry the stain of mortal sin is it more merciful/charitable to allow them to eat and drink of the Eucharist or is it more merciful/charitable to try and prevent/dissuade them from consuming the Eucharist?
For the rigorist to entertain, let alone ask these questions does not feel like hypocrisy or self-righteousness. Indeed it feels more like betrayal and cowardice. Cowardice pursing the easy route of not trying to protect those who may eat and drink condemnation, betrayal of past generations of saints and acclaimed good shepherds, betrayal even of our Lord Himself. “But the one who disowns me in the presence of human beings, I will disown in the presence of my Father in heaven.” Matt 10:33.
Now here is the rub, the rigorist position has been upheld by the Church for a very long time. It is not born out of any desire to be judgmental – on the contrary it derives from a desire to be merciful and protective of any person finding themselves in such situation. On the other hand criticising the rigorist approach today because of contemporary norms and realities is objectively judgmental of past generations of sincere prelates. Moreover it risk affronting Christ’s asserted role of the Holy Spirit “the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and remind you of all I have said to you” (Jn 14:26). Was the Paraclete unable to ensure that the Church was able to do things right these past 1500 or 2000 years.
Forgive me for stating the obvious, winding back the above is a tall order, but seems necessary if the reformist proposal is to be supported. Where to start? Should we start? Well out of charity I think we have to try and with much in trepidation perhaps a place to start is with the Eucharist.
• Is sacrilege a man-made construct or is it evidently an affront to God?
• Is it possible to commit sacrilege against the Eucharist?
• Is Eucharistic sacrilege committed when someone who’s soul is stained by mortal sin consumes the Eucharis
• 1 Cor 7:10-16 makes it clear that the church’s potion on divorce and remarriage has held since the very earliest days of Christianity. Moreover the crucial role each spouse may have in the other’s salvation is stated clearly, giving all the more weight to the injunction not to try and remarry.
• Navigating the above in any specific situation where a marriage is claimed to have broken down needs to be handled with utmost delicacy and the rigorist position would hold that it cannot possibly be addressed adequately or safely between only one spouse and their prelate. The annulment process is hard because the stakes are so high.
[Again, others may be able to constructively expand the above , or even dismiss some of the observations].
Looking at some merits of each position:
Refomisti:
• The intention of the reformist proposal can be seen as trying to meet Jesus’ example of “eating with tax collectors and sinners” (Matt 9:11). As well as responding to Jesus insight “It is not the healthy who need a physician, but the sick” (Lk 5:31).
• The mercy dialogue is clearly more attractive to those who from a rigorist perspective are sinning. Hence the stance opens doors to engagement/interaction that appear otherwise to be closed, too quickly confrontational and often non constructive.
• All of us recognise a personal tendency to self-justify, our own particular weaknesses – perhaps all the more vigorously the more entrenched we are in a particular behaviour.
• It is truth to observe that Mothers will excuse the failings of their child – the reformist proposal seems to be that Mother Church emulates this behaviour (whilst still chastising the child when the right circumstances prevail).
[Other may be able to constructively expand the above, or even dismiss some of the observations].
Rigoristi: (here I feel more comfortable)
• At the heart of the rigorist position is the sincere concern to ensure that in partaking of the Eucharist one is not “eating and drinking their own condemnation” (1 Cor 11:29