Sunday, 10 April 2016

Amoris Laetitia: An adequate document; open to misreading!

I successfully avoided reading any news articles or blogs about the exhortation until I had read it through once and got a sense of what it says. It is important to be aware of the balance of the document, as well as the specific issue that can be picked out.

It is a long document, but reaffirms a lot of the Church's teaching:
Divorce is not good, artificial contraception is wrong, same-sex marriage is not the same as natural marriage, the parents are the primary educators of their children.

It does emphasise some ideas more than perhaps in the past:
the death penalty is not right, not everyone in an irregular union (e.g.divorced and remarried) is in moral sin.

And there are some points that raise eyebrows:

  • Condemnation is not forever - well Hell is eternal. But Francis probably means that we on Earth cannot condemn forever... or that the complexities of life are not totally irreconcilable (although, it should be pointed out that not receiving Holy Communion is not the same as condemnation!).
  • His reference, in a footnote, to providing sacraments to strengthen those moving towards deeper acceptance of the Gospel is good, but sounds like he wants more openness without any realistic expectation or hope of change. 
  • He talks about people showing fidelity, but as Edward Peters points out, it is surely true to say that remarried persons are shows infidelity to their first marriage as much as they are faithful to this second. 


These seem to be the issues raised by others. The idea that the document is written to be 'abused' is concerning...though I'm not sure of the Holy Father's motives at times. He doesn't make any reforms to the law, for better or for worse. There is not much insight into the nature of marriage or the relationship between natural marriage and sacramental marriage. Nor is there much of an exhortation for those who live the single life through their circumstances.

The document is a slightly frustrating read in that it repeats itself and oftentimes is quoting from Pope Francis himself or the synod rather than more established documents of the Church (such as the documents of Vatican II). Having said this, it is true that the document clearly values Vatican II and St John Paul II so it is therefore absolutely right for priests and catechists to continue to draw on the riches of those documents and to be sure that they are proclaiming the official Catholic teaching of today.

Friday, 8 April 2016

You know you're Catholic when...

...you have to withdraw from social media until after you've read the Apostolic Exhortation on the family to avoid spoilers!

Following my highly successful thoughts from the working document, I may update with my musings as I go, or when I finish, or never...read into that what you will.

Update 16:30:
For someone who laments long homilies, Francis takes his time to get to the point! But the first chapter is a really good grounding in the Theology of the Body of St JPII rooted in Sacred Scripture. Key ideas being that the family is an icon of the love of the persons of the Trinity, that love is free, total, self-giving and fruitful, and that work seems to be a key part of human dignity.

Chapter two presents some thoughts coming out of the witness of the questionnaires sent around the world. Francis seems to chastise those who hold to strict doctrine...but he doesn't quite go as far as to dispense with it...leaving the people in a confused state where there is 'room for the consciences of the faithful' ...for the church is 'called to form consciences, not to replace them'. The issue is that conscience is about effectively applying the abstract norms and doctrines (that he seems so wary of stressing) into the concrete lived realities of life; it makes no sense to both demand the church proclaims how people should 'do family' in specific and realistic ways without replacing the role of conscience. However, there is some very good content here too about the difference between freedom and the ''idea that each individual can act arbitrarily''. It also goes on to include affordable housing alongside all the other stuff (hence the length of this document!). He gives the example of a single parent leaving the child alone to go to work...but it is unclear to me what this is an example for..

Chapter three looks at the role of the family, reminding us that the parents are the primary carers and educators of their children and the state should not replace them ordinarily - I'd suggest the SNP's nominate person system borders on depriving parents of this right. I liked this quote: "By becoming one flesh they embody the espousal of our human nature by the Son of God". It affirms the Church's stance that abortion and euthanasia are morally wrong (always and everywhere)...but then throws in a rejection of the death penalty in similar language - Benedict XVI (pre-Pope) - made it clear that the Church has not spoken definitively and bindingly on the faithful on this matter.

So on I go!

Update 19:00:

Chapter four
 offers an interesting exegesis of Paul's hymn of love in Corrinitians, and some particularly valuable reflects on the relationship between married life and consecrated virginity. In this Francis talks about the mutual enriching of these states of life - how celibacy can be a sign of total devotion to the kingdom looking to Heaven, while married life demands fidelity and steadfastness in another way here in this moment.

Chapter five deals with fruitfulness, talking about the roles of adoption and foster care. Large families are a blessing, though not required. He has said already that procreation isn't the sole aim of marriage, He goes on to talk about the role of the elderly in society. He does make an interesting point about what it means to 'discern the body of the Lord' and seems to suggest that this shouldn't be taken to refer to the Eucharist but to a degree of understanding of fellow church-goers (who are, after all, the body of Christ)...it feels like he might be preparing to say that closed communion is too judgemental...in spite of the clear teaching of the Church historically...but we'll see!

Update 09/04/2015 23:00

Chapter six offers a vague array of specific insights (I deliberately juxtaposed vague and specific here) into marriage preparation and other related ideas. A great quote is that 'marriage preparation begins at birth' - the idea that formal marriage preparation is a gift to the children of the future parents as much as for the parents themselves. Some parts seem unclear - he talks about love being more than a feeling..but then talks about young love's excitement being a propelling force. "Each marriage is a kind of 'salvation history'" working towards deeper relationship and unity. Classes and meetings have limited use to many couples today. He talks about the role of effective communication between the parties.  He likes the phases 'please', 'thank you', and 'sorry'. He says that "divorced people who have not remarried often bear witness to marital fidelity" but that those in irregular unions are not excommunicated.  Yet, "divorce is an evil. Same-sex unions are not like marriage, but those struggling with same-sex attraction should be respected and seek God's will.

Chapter seven deals with education. It reaffirms the role of the parent, but stresses the need for authentic sex education to teach modesty, masculinity/feminity, and mutual respect. It talks about the benefit of using personal testimonies not authoritative rules to propose the faith effectively to young people - it's harder to argue with experience!It is noted that families involved in mission often pass this zeal to their children.

Chapter eight return to the ideal of marriage in the Gospel which reflects Christ and his Church - it:1- is between mana nd women, 2 - giving themselves a- freely, b- faithfully, c-exclusively, 3- until death, 4- open to life, and 5- consecrated by the sacrament. Some other unions are partially good and comparable to marriage, while others are not. Francis talks about gradualness - people move towards embracing the fullness of the Gospel in time and the Church should be patient with people still journeying. He rightly points out that no-one (presumably meaning those who are still alive) is condemned for ever, there is always hope...but sin can separate from the community. Here the pope is difficult to read. He talks about second unions being "consolated over time", perhaps they are good for children and besides the individual might be "subjectively certain in conscience that their previous... marriage had never been valid". He does not say it, but it seems as if he is suggesting a looser understanding of marriage less bound by the witness of the state/church - after all the couple does confer the sacrament on each other so why not say that a couple who have decided to live as husband and wife yet are not formally married can be seen as married in a moral sense. The church could alter the way in which she regulated marriage..but Francis doesn;t seem to want to change the rules formally. He mentions living as 'brother and sister' but seems to view this as unreasonably difficult for people to be expected to always follow. He warns of the danger of scandal with informal exceptions granted by priests to the norms, but seems to encourage flexibility. Pope Francis says that those living in irregular unions should not be equated to being in a state of mortal sin on that basis alone. He scolds those who proclaim the church's teachings as 'sitting on the chair of Moses' presumably disparagingly seeing them as modern Pharisees...yet in Mt 23:!-3 Jesus says to follow the teaching of these people and warns against those who do not act in accord with it! Frustratingly, considering the obvious interest in the issue of divorced and remarried persons receiving communion he is anything but clear. He does say earlier that the reception of the Eucharist at the marriage ceremony should be 'in keeping with the general norms'. But, he hides in a footnote that the sacraments can help build the grace working in those people's lives who find themselves in irregular unions...but doesn't answer the question. It seems to me that he wants priests to allow it, but doesn't want to say it explicitly since it goes against the main practice of the Church up until now.  But then, confusingly, he goes on the say we shouldn;t hold back from proclaiming the idea and that relativism shows a lack of fidelity to the Gospel... this document can and will be used by whatever 'side' of the Church to claim the pope's support - it's long and wordy and open to interpretation. Initially,I am disappointed in this chapter especially.

Chapter 9 returns to more encouraging ideals of married life. (as an aside, he seems to  view vatican 2 as some distant historical event rather than a relatively recent experience..). He talks of marriage being a form of praise. I was concerned that the phase ' union with Jesus ..can help avoid a breakup' could be a painful read for those who have suffered relationship breakdown through no fault of their own. Francis does point out the intimate connection between the Eucharist and Marriage - the love of God  for his people is expressed in terms of marriage and conversely marriage mirrors Christ's love which was total, fee self-gift upon the cross. He ends with a prayer to the Holy Family, and it is given on St Joseph's day - a man of chastity and a model for all married and single persons.

---
Well that's me at the end. I'll have to reflect more. But it is worthwhile putting these initial views down. I' not a cleric and so it is right to encourage a degree of open debate without the danger of scandalizing a flock that a priest might have! My initial thought is that this document contains a whole host of fantastic reflections and teaching on the role of sexuality in love, presenting the complex teaching of JPII on Theology of the Body is a compact and relevant way. But, because it opens up the role of conscience to such an extent that any norms seem almost meaningless this document will be a polarizing one for the Church and this pontificate. Fortunately, the sense of the faith and the grace of God can carry us through and help us learn to see more clearly with time how to live out the kingdom joyfully in this complex world! Where else will we go, Christ and his Church has the message of eternal life!

J.M.J.

Saturday, 2 April 2016

Low Sunday - John 20:19-31

John 20:19-31
19 Therefore at late evening on that day, the first day after the Sabbath and the doors, wherein the disciples were in fear of the Jews, were locked; Jesus came and stood in the midst and he said to them, 'Peace to you20 And after he said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Therefore, having seen the Lord, the disciples rejoiced. 21 He (Jesus) said to them all, 'Peace to you, just as the Father sent me, also I send you'. 22 And having said this, he breathed on them and he said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit, 23 if you (pl) forgive anyone of sin they shall be forgiven, if you (pl) retain any they shall be retained.
24 But Thomas, one out of the twelve, who is called Didymus (Twin) was not with them when Jesus came. 25 Therefore the other disciples said to him, 'We  have seen the Lord'. But he said to them, 'unless I see in his hand the scars of the nails and I throw my finger into the scars of the nail and I throw my hand into his side, I will not believe'. 26 And after eight days, the disciples were inside and Thomas was with them. Jesus entered in the door that was locked and stood in the midst and he said, 'Peace to you'. 27 Then he said to Thomas, 'Bring your finger here and see my hands and bring your hand and throw it into my side, and do not be unbelieving but believe'! 28 Thomas answered and he said to him, 'My Lord and my God'. 29 Jesus said to him, 'Because you see me, you have believed; blessed are the ones having believed who have not seen'.
30 So then, Jesus did all these and other signs in the presence of his disciples, but they are not written in this booked. 31 But these things are written in order that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and in order that, having believed, you might have life in his name.

Comparison with other translations (notable differences):

NRSV - 19 - when it was evening. week not sabbath, stood in their midst 23 - retain any sins 25 - put not throw. 26 -  a week later. 30 - Now Jesus did many other signs (i.e. no reference to doing these signs).

Geneva Bible (1599) - 19 - week not sabbath, incorrectly italicised the word 'day' as an addition from the Greek text, when the doors were shut not where...the doors were locked, 23- sins ye retain, 25 - put not throw, 28 - adds thou art to my Lord and my God, 30 -And many other signs also (i.e. no reference to doing these signs).

Douay Rheims - 20 - were glad not rejoiced. 23- sins ye retain, 25 - put not throw, 30 - many other sings (i.e. no reference to doing these signs).

Notes and Comments:

Verse 26 says eight days later in the Greek, this seems to be important as if one counts the Sabbath as the seventh day, then Jesus rising on the Sunday can either be seen as the first day or the eighth day - a new creation ensues from this event - since this narrative is so bound up with the resurrection itself it seems unsatisfactory to smooth out the eight days into a week as the NRSV does.

Verse 30 - there seems to be a stronger reference to those signs which have been recorded by John than comes out in many translations. Although saying also he did other signs does alludes to previous works, John is making the point that the ones selected are so selected as the most profitable and necessary for coming to life.

Sometimes the gospel accounts give 'a day in the life of Jesus' - a single day in Galilee seems to structure the bulk of St Matthew's Gospel between chapters 5 and 15 - here John continues to pick up on the events of Easter Sunday.  This reinforces the point that Jesus did so much more than is merely recorded in the Gospels and underscores the role of Sacred Tradition in the life of the Church.

Jesus is raised with the same body as that which was crucified, bearing the scars of the nails (v 20).

Verse 22 - breathed on them à the risen humanity of Jesus has become a sacrament of the divine Spirit (Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament (2010) citing CCC 1116).


Friday, 15 January 2016

Sunday of Week 2 of Ordinary Time - Year C - Gospel - John 2:1-11

Introduction

John's gospel is often thought to be composed slightly later than the three synoptic Evangels. It tends towards higher theological reflections, and so is sometimes symbolised by an eagle.  This reading is taken from near the beginning of John. The great prologue to the gospel - and the word was made flesh - precedes this. John has made clear he is not the messiah, and two of his disciples (Andrew and Peter) leave Johna and follow our Lord (John 1:37). Immediately prior is the calling of two more disciples (Philip and Nathanael) with that great phrase 'come and see' (John 1:46). Now we jump into the narrative of this Word who is God who has been made flesh and called 4 disciples and whom John the Baptist proclaimed as the Lamb of God:

John 2:1-11 (My Translation)

1And on the third day, it happened (that there was) a wedding in Cana of Galilee,  and the mother of Jesus was there. 2But she invited Jesus and the his disciples to the wedding. 3And having given out wine, the mother of Jesus said to him. "They have no wine". 4And Jesus said to her, "What am I to you, woman? My hour is not yet coming'". 5His mother said to the servents, "What ever he says to you, you shall do". 6Six stone water jars were there according to the appointed purification of the Jews, each jar holding two or three measures*. 7Jesus said to them, "Fill the water jars with water." And they filled them up to the brim. 8And he said to them, "Now, draw water and take it to the person in charge." So they took (the water). 9 The person in charge tasted the water, it became as wine and he did not know from where came. But the servants who drew the water did know its origin. The bridegroom appeared (before) the person in charge, 10 And he said to him, "Any person, first puts out the good wine and (then) when they have got drunk, the inferior (wine is served). You have kept the good wine until now. 11This brought about the begening of he signs of Jesus in Cana of Galilee and his glory was revealed, and his disciples believed in him.

*A measure is about 10 gallions or 40 liters.

John 2:1-11 (Jerusaelm Bible)

There was a wedding at Cana in Galilee. The mother of Jesus was there, and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited. When they ran out of wine, since the wine provided for the wedding was all finished, the mother of Jesus said to him, ‘They have no wine.’ Jesus said ‘Woman, why turn to me? My hour has not come yet.’ His mother said to the servants, ‘Do whatever he tells you.’ There were six stone water jars standing there, meant for the ablutions that are customary among the Jews: each could hold twenty or thirty gallons. Jesus said to the servants, ‘Fill the jars with water’, and they filled them to the brim. ‘Draw some out now’ he told them ‘and take it to the steward.’ They did this; the steward tasted the water, and it had turned into wine. Having no idea where it came from – only the servants who had drawn the water knew – the steward called the bridegroom and said; ‘People generally serve the best wine first, and keep the cheaper sort till the guests have had plenty to drink; but you have kept the best wine till now.’
This was the first of the signs given by Jesus: it was given at Cana in Galilee. He let his glory be seen, and his disciples believed in him.

Note on the Text
The mass reading itself leaves out the clause, on the third day, but choice of the compilers of the lectionary. This seems a shame, since the third day image is a powerful pointer forward to the resurrection and the new covenant - elsewhere talked in terms of new wine for new wineskins and of course fulfilled in the Eucharist.

Reflection
These water-jars seem almost penitential in character, but from it comes the fine wine. It reminds us that through self-denial we reach a place of fulfillment. The New Testament is a fulfillment of the Old. The signs and images of the Old come to light in the New. St Paul says that we now see dimly as through a mirror, but then we shall see face to face - perhaps the fulfillment of the Old Testament in the New gives an insight into how extensive the transformation of our vision in heaven might be compared to life on Earth as we know it. But we know our Father always brings out treasures for his beloved children, and so we need to trust in him and follow Jesus wholeheartedly

2nd Sunday of Ordinary Time - Year C - First Reading - Isaiah 62:1-5

More for me than you. I thought I'd try and see if I can offer some thoughts and reflections on the upcoming Sunday mass readings.

Introduction

The first reading is taken from Isaiah. Isaiah is an extensive work of the Old Testament - it's set across a sweeping timeframe encompassing pre-exile, exile and post-exile life for the people of Judea (the Babylonian exile is generally dated 587BC to 536BC), it contains many images taken into the Christian tradition and is notable as being well-preserved in the Dead Sea scrolls. This reading comes from so-called Third Isaiah, the period after the exile when the chosen people are invited to return to their land under the Persian king Cyrus. The context is the re-establishment of Sion as a centre of worship - looking forward to a time in which the Jewish people would be light to the nations and bring the other nations to the LORD.

Isaiah 62 (Jerusalem Bible)

About Zion I will not be silent,
about Jerusalem I will not grow weary,
until her integrity shines out like the dawn
and her salvation flames like a torch.

The nations then will see your integrity,
all the kings your glory,
and you will be called by a new name,
one which the mouth of the Lord will confer.
You are to be a crown of splendour in the hand of the Lord,
a princely diadem in the hand of your God;

no longer are you to be named ‘Forsaken’,
 nor your land ‘Abandoned’,
but you shall be called ‘My Delight’
and your land ‘The Wedded’;
for the Lord takes delight in you
and your land will have its wedding.

Like a young man marrying a virgin,
so will the one who built you wed you,
and as the bridegroom rejoices in his bride,
so will your God rejoice in you

Isaiah 62 (My Translation)

1To the end that Sion is not silent    and to the end that Jerusalem is not quiet
until her righteousness goes out as brightness     and her salvation like a burning lamp.
2And the nations see your righteousness   and all kings your glory
And you shall be called by a new name   that the mouth of the LORD (your God) shall give to you.
3And you will be a crown of glory in the hand of LORD   A royal turban in the palm of your God.
4Not calling you again 'Forsaken'    nor shall your land be called again 'Desolate'
For to you he shall proclaim 'My delight in her'   and to your land 'Married'
For the LORD delights in you   and your land shall be married.
5For as a youth marrying a virgin   so shall your sons marry
And as daughter's husband rejoices over the bride   so your God rejoices over you.


Notes on the Text

From the layout of both translations, you can note that the text broadly falls into poetry, a common marker of prophetic works in the bible. My translation is read first part-pause-second part-bigger pause for each line.
A big difference is found in verse five - is it the one who built you marrying you or a promise of marriage to your sons? The context suggests that a simile is intended so it might be more fitting to follow the Jerusalem Bible's translation which finds its parallel in the last line. Psalm 147:2 talks about the LORD building up Jerusalem after the exile. The debate is on the difference between  the noun 'sons' BNM and the verb 'build' BNH - to say either your sons or the one who built you require the same 2nd person singular suffix, and the last letter drops out - so the word is not fully clear. However, the Greek translation of the Old Testament says so shall thy sons dwell in thee (Not my translation: source: http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/Esaias/index.htm).  The marital imagery of this passage might lend itself more to the sons translation - this gives verse 5 the dual aspects of temporal/horizontal/natural blessing (i.e. sons marrying, good society) and eternal/vertical/supernatural blessing (relationship with God our Father).

Reflection

This poetic passage is sometimes used as a canticle in Morning Prayer, and it invites us to go out into the world as salt and light to bear witness to Jesus. We can relate to the exiles - we are in this world but we can be a bit dazed as to how to move forward and establish the Kingdom here. Of course, God himself takes the lead. He delights over us and this bears fruit. It reminds us that God does not forsake us, and he will not rest until we are fulfilled in our being - we are called to be a people of righteousness, salvation and glory, always leading the peoples back to God.



Tuesday, 8 September 2015

Pope Francis Reforms the Annulment Process

I'm back to my studies presently and thought it might be right to kick-start the old blog once again.

I just read on BBC News (here) some, in my opinion, welcome news. (I want to sidestep the whole 'apologist nitpick' of the fact that re-marriage is a misnomer since there never was a first marriage - yes language can create culture and all that, but give them a break! It's a headline and getting the fine distinction is hard)

So essentially the process of exploring whether an (apparent) marriage that has broken down was valid (from the beginning, i.e. the wedding day) is to be simplified. Instead of requiring two dioceses to agree that it was not valid, now only one is expected to do so. Additionally, fees should not be charged by the diocese to investigate.

This move is important. It will hopefully fast-track the procedure - allowing people in terribly difficult situations to find clarity and peace. It is one thing to embrace one's cross if one finds oneself in an irregular situation (that might prevent entering into marriage). but it is quite another to be in a prolonged state of limbo, unsure what the final outcome will be.

Further, much of the debate has been the question of remarried persons receiving Holy Communion - of course, this is impossible since their state of life is probably scandalous and almost certainly gravely sinful. The salvation of souls is at stake. In reforming the procedure, Pope Francis will be hoping more avail of the juristic mechanism to regularise their state of life and so be able to participate fully in the life of Christ and his Church. This is not lowering the bar. A saint might well bear the burden of living chastely following a divorce, but evidently many do not. This is not the Church moving the goalposts so that everyone get's in - she cannot do this for she cannot forsake our Lord's teaching nor compel anyone else to enter the Church. What this change does do, however, is allow those people to overcome the objective barriers to a living relationship with Jesus first so that then they are freer to deepen their faith through more ordinary means of grace (the sacraments).

But, this has not changed anything in one sense. That is to say that valid, sacramental marriages will remain indissolvable (unto death of one or other of the spouses).In my mind, many marriages that breakdown may have grounds for an annulment - how many go into marriage thinking that it will probably not last and so don't freely accept the demands of the wedding vows (a great eample being the signing of prenuptial agreements)? So yes, give clarity. Yes, encourage people to seek annulments where appropriate. But we also need to start ministering to those who are separated from their spouses and need particular support. Most especially, the Church must support converts from other faiths who may be in irregular unions lest they feel unwelcome or unable to be Catholic at all.

Friday, 22 May 2015

End of the Year Sum Up (*excluding the masses of detail not included)

Coming to the end of our first year of university life, we feel it is right to take some time to take stock of ourselves. Before that, it is a noble cause to take stock of what on earth 'take stock' means, and now we've come to it what the semantic meaning of 'on earth' in that context is. Also, is it wrong to end a sentence in is? We had assumed taking stock referred to savouring the juices of cooked meat in order to make a soup, thus giving rise to a meaning along the lines of 'extracting the core essence' or even 'waste not, want not'. Our delusions present a rather heightened sense to the endeavour, where the effect of our taking stock is a resourcement and a finding of oneself (whatever that means). Apparently, taking stock is a not-so-cryptic-once-it-is-pointed-out allusion to stocktaking; rather more functional! The 'on earth' serves very little purpose it seems since the sentence would mean pretty much precisely (is it pretty much or is it precisely?) the same without that phase, as the sentence does as it stands (not that sentences literally stand, of course, this is a metaphorical standing, I'm sure, to do with commanding respect and authority - perhaps you ought to have been better off saluted all of our sentences which do stand). "To do with"? It's those short and common words that are most confusing when one tries to explain what they mean separately and alongside those words surrounding them.

This web-log has already chronicled some changes affecting our outlook on life at various points therefore, here we shall simply restate facts and thoughts by in a quasi-spiritualized reflective tone to make you feely-goody readers feel all good inside.

We dare to call out what appears to be an emerging passion within ourselves for language. There is a beauty to the word, particularly the written word, which has the power to communicate something of love and life between individuals. Certainly the Word of God deserves distinct recognition since he gives meaning to existence and communicates the fullness of love who is God himself. But, increasing we desire to see beauty in the language and the great gift it is to our existence. It is a dangerous thing when writing to too highly acclaim good writing, lest the scrutinous reader take exception to the implicit claim that the shoddy workmanship of language presented is to be received as 'good writing'. In our defence, someone is reading this which is a fundamental start to being any good.

Studying Biblical Hebrew was surprisingly refreshing. At least there is a certainty, at my level of study, that one either is right or wrong. Contrasted with an essay question, a translation question requires a straightforward answer after which the student knows where he fell short of a better score.

In spite of the assurance that the introductory outline of the language gave, we found that the study of the Hebrew prophets was riddled with uncertainty in translation and meaning. Although, it ought to be conceded that this uncertainty may have been over imposed by secular scholars keen to discount the possibility of any prophet doing anything other than reporting recent events as if they were yet to happen to ascribe some sort of authorised interpretation of history. Once or twice such hypothesises are interesting but when one finds scholars dismissing long established dating of a prophetic book on the basis that they predicted some event (perhaps even vaguely) that occurred after this previously supposed date of authorship, then one starts to wonder what the 'scholar' supposes the point is and indeed what he makes of the many types of Jesus Christ that Christians point to in the Old Testament. Pious, but erroneous. eisegesis imposed by the institutional church no doubt.

Talking about an institutional church, the Church's role in education is frustrating as it stands (more standing). Some complain that teachers are overworked and underpaid - yet these are usually the same liberals who will dismiss a nun from living out her vocation in service to the young and then later ask the question 'well what good does the church do society?'. Being in a city with many parishes, we feel unattached to any one in particular. This is a shame in the sense that we used to be ardent in our praise of the parish as the place of encounter with the Gospel for most people - perhaps we were spoilt by such a wonderful parish back home! This detachment, however, frees us up in our career choices since we no longer desire primary to be available to commit to serving the parish in a structured manner (and also allows is to crudely dismiss the suggested of pursuing a vocation as a parish priest...even if it is recommended us on the basis of our being full of __________). Although one bugbear at the moment is that the Church does appear obsessed with keeping up with the latest trends; yes, be docile to the Spirit...but you know the Church has been led by him for the last 1980 year or so without the need for daily facebook memes and photos of the pontiff quoted saying some lovely, but blindingly obvious, statement (often one widely circulated some time go...when he first said it - at least be consistent and get with the times!).

Overall, it seems that the more we study theology the less we feel the need to talk about God and the more we feel the need to enter into relationship with the persons of the Trinty. Afterall, "unless there is a sense in which theology falls silent before God, it cannot speak of him" (Luke Bell, in his latest book - 'The Meaning of Blue').