Brideshead Revisited in 2012
Brideshead, Reuters:
The funeral of the Marquess of Marchmain was marred by the refusal of the parish priest, Father Mackay, to give Communion to two of the mourners, Lady Julia Mottram, the Marquess' daughter, and her partner, the artist Charles Ryder. According to Ms. Mottram, the priest refused to give her Communion after he learned that she was living with Charles Ryder even though Ms. Mottram is still married to the Conservative politician, Rex Mottram. Ms. Mottram told Reuters that she was "outraged at this priest's callousness. I am in a loving, committed relationship with Charles. I even introduced Charles to him as my lover. Who are these priests to pass judgment on love? What do they know about love, anyway? This priest was just like my brother, who told me I was living in sin with Charles. How can being intimate with someone you love ever be a sin?"
Charles Ryder, who is not a Catholic, was also denied Communion. Ryder told Reuters that "I thought Jesus welcomed everybody. What difference should it make that I'm not a Catholic? Shouldn't the priest welcome me when I come up for Communion? Isn't that what Jesus would do?"
Both Mottram and Ryder have launched a campaign to have Fr. Mackay removed from his parish. "We don't want anyone else hurt by this priest's arrogance," said Ms. Mottram. "I foolishly let him give my father the Last Rites, which is probably what killed him. But passing judgment on Charles and me was too much."
Entries(RSS)
This was fantastic! Thank you, Mr. Piatak!
So, one Catholic priest still observes the rules of his religion? I'm truly shocked, I was under the impression that most Catholic leaders were governed by a well lubricated and all inclusive moral compass, unencumbered by stiff rules and standards. It seems there is a rebel in Brideshead.
Poor Ms Mottram was offended by this renegade priest. "I foolishly let him give my father the Last Rites, which is probably what killed him. But passing judgment on Charles and me was too much." Yes, it was probably the Last Rites which killed this woman's father. I'm sure priests kill people that way all the time.
As if murder wasn't bad enough, the priest judged Mottram and her lover unqualified to receive communion. Which, of course, was far worse than killing her father. Mottram does, it seems, have her priorities well in order.
But I'm still wondering why the modest Ms Mottram failed to mention the priest's greatest crimes; his refusal to give communion to Ms Mottram's pet goats, bless her healing crystals, sanctify her bed and grant her eternal absolution. Come on baby, don't allow your humility to get in the way of social justice.
Oops, it was the women's mother who died. I mean, killed by the priest.
We're living in a Wuerl of hurt, Tom.
If the canon lawyer cited in the third update to the report on the case of the Maryland lesbian that is the subject of the first link ("refusal of the parish priest") in this posting is correct, it seems that, much as we feel for him, Fr. Mackay was mistaken if he thought he was properly observing Canon 951. What's outrageous to me in both the lesbian's and the titled live-in lover's responses is that each woman says she won't be satisfied until the priest is ousted, not just reprimanded or corrected on the point of the canon.
Ray,
My little satire was inspired by the event in Maryland, but it is not a direct commentary on it. I do not know whether the Maryland priest properly applied Canon Law or not; I am not competent to make that determination. But what is striking to me, at least based on the media reports, is the underlying attitude that people have a right to receive Communion, regardless of what the Catholic Church (or any other church) says. That attitude would have been completely alien to the characters in Waugh's masterpiece. Even Rex Mottram, who is willing to hide the fact of his prior marriage from the Cardinal so that he can still marry Julia in style, never thinks that he can demand all the finery associated with a nuptial Mass presided over by a Cardinal without first becoming a Catholic. Charles Ryder never tries to receive Communion before becoming a Catholic. And Julia understands the point of Bridey's admonition that she is"living in sin," and ultimately chooses to give up her relationship with Charles Ryder, even though she does love him, because "I saw today that there was one thing unforgivable – like things in a schoolroom, so bad they are unpunishable, that only Mummy could deal with – the bad thing I was on the point of doing, that I’m not quite capable of doing; to set up a rival good to God’s."
They have no *respect for the religion they go to receive communion from, what are they doing there? Hell hath no fury like a woman today refused anything she has decided she wants i.e. thus 'deserves', especially if refused by a male. Changing the inner man or woman is one of the meanings of salvation, so she's lost presently. Now thanks to the priest she's at least aware of it.
I suspect that people like this lesbian fanatic who are now demanding full access to the Eucharist, regardless of Church teachings, would be among the first to cheer the destruction of the churches and the execution of the priests in the style of the French Revolution.
First, my blushes for not detecting the satire. Now you know another book--and writer--I've not yet read. But of course, I agree that the presumption of an "inalienable" right to the Eucharist is outrageous. Of the many "lapsed" Catholics I know, at least one acknowledges that protesters to the Church invariably fail to understand that it is not, never has been, and never will be a democratic institution that may, much less will, change its doctrine and teaching because a majority or countenanced minority of the people in the pews or in the streets don't like them. That only one--a former seminarian, by the way--of my lapsed Catholic acquaintances seems to know what the Church is may be either a sad commentary on Catholic education in mid-twentieth-century America or another chilling reminder of the success of the Enlightenment or both.
I am not a Roman Catholic, and I certainly cannot speak to Canon Law; however, I have a Christian solidarity with Father Mackay and would remind him that our Lord reserved the final blessing found in the Beatitudes for those found worthy to be persecuted for His name's sake. I am also reminded that our Lord said that wherever He is lifted up, He will draw all men unto Him. When men are drawn to our Lord, they react in one of three ways: they bow in humility to Him and submit themselves to His will; they, like the rich young ruler, go away sad, wanting but not willing to sacrifice; or they, like the Pharisees and the rabble, scream "Crucify Him!" Quite obviously, Father Mackay, in his office as a priest and in his life as a Christian, was, in administering and guarding the most intimate and most holy moment in Christendom, partaking in the Eucharist, lifting up the Christ. The response thereunto was "Crucify Him!" The lost world sees only a priest and a Christian, but Satan, who is the real enemy, is the voice behind the vitriol; and he sees the Christ whom he hates. The lady and those joining her in this maliciousness are the ones actually being consumed by this evil; and we, therefore, should pray for them, be that ever so difficult; and it certainly is.
Ray,
I think you would enjoy "Brideshead Revisited." And if you do enjoy Waugh's book, you should treat yourself to the 1981 British miniseries, the best televised adaptation of a novel I know of and one of a handful of truly great programs ever to have been on TV.
Mr. Peters you're a real star or guiding light and always a profound pleasure reading yours. I would only add that personally I find it less difficult (perhaps even easy, i.e. yoke easy, burden light) in praying for these deluded when I remember at the center of all of our human natures is a core or subset of evil which I own and don't deny. They deny it. Because it's not the image they want of themselves though it falls short of knowledge, which is always unaffected regardless of how complete (e.g. better) or incomplete (e.g. worse) the image may be. ... Also in freedom I'm not judging the woman's choices for herself on her path, that's her business. I'm questioning or taking umbrage at the absurdity of her demanding to receive the holiest of the sacraments in a Church whose standards preclude her from receiving it, and without which Traditional standards there would be no reason for the Church. In other words her complaint is not only regarding the Church's metaphysics, but even a violation of reason itself. Perhaps then and I mean this sincerely, she's a god, requiring nothing but what she irrationally demands of the world. Then she should not only find another Church, she should start one.
Could it be, good sir, that it is not simply a question of poor education but that, for one reason or another (many in fact) the Catholic clergy have ceased to command the moral authority and fear that they did in the prewar years?
Fully agree, Mr. Piatak, both on the TV serial and on TV in general. But I find BBC and Granada serials to be quite good in general, rather like epic extended films (and I *love* movies) than like "TV shows" (which as a rule I loathe).
Forgot to mention: I'm two episodes into House of Cards, and it's simply delicious.
Replying to Mr. Moses' "...that it is not simply a question of poor education but that, for one reason or another (many in fact) the Catholic clergy have ceased to command the moral authority and fear that they did in the prewar years?" -end quote.
Short answer yes. Clergy used to be respected as they ought at the top of the professions: Cleric, Doctor, Lawyer, Teacher, Banker. Now the new religion of the people instead of Christianity is the Mass-media. As a result they're all at the bottom equally along with the Media.
Short answer yes. Clergy used to be respected as they ought at the top of the professions: Cleric, Doctor, Lawyer, Teacher, Banker. Now the new religion of the people instead of Christianity is the Mass-media. As a result they're all at the bottom equally along with the Media.
The mass media commanded such religious respect even in the prewar period. (Come on, would the Spanish-American War ever have gone down without W. Randolph Hearst??) So what makes the difference these days?
I blame the hierarchy. How are we supposed to have any respect for Church magisterium when Fr. Guarnizo is reprimanded by his Archbishop for standing up for it? How are even faithful Catholics to trust their bishops in the face of such scandals?
I need to retract what I said about the reprimand as an example, if indeed the canon in question was not properly implied (regarding the alleged notoriety of the woman's sin). However, I do maintain the recalcitrance of certain clerics to denounce more blatant public scandals is certainly a factor in the erosion of the respect they are accorded.
Many Catholics in the US seem to think the church's moral teaching ought to be determined by a public opinion poll.
What is their point? Why not just leave the Catholic church and join another that will bless their immorality? Why stay? Do they still think the church has some sort of sway on their eternal destiny and that if they get it to change its stance on moral issues that they can still go to heaven despite "living in sin?" (Or, as it were, living the same way, but having the church declare it now licit?) Or do they really desire to topple the Catholic church by destroying its moral constitution?
I'm not a Catholic, however, I have great respect for its traditional moral teaching.
On the topic of Waugh's "Brideshead Revisited:" The book is exquisite, with some of the lovliest prose written in the 20th Century (I'm not anything like an expert on 20th C. literature, though I was forced to read a large share of 20th C. trash in college). The 1981 series is an exquisite adaptation: the filming is lush without excess; the dialogue is taken virtually word for word from the book; and the acting is excellent (Sir John Gielgud's potrayal of Charles Ryder's father is hilarious).
Everyone interested in this affair ought to read an excellent letter written by Fr. Guarnizo defending his actions, that can be read in its entirety here:
http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2012/03/fr-guarnizio-explains-himself/
This should all be understandable and predictable to the professing Christian. Although Fr. Guarnizo's defense or apology is just and perhaps even merciful, I think it is naive for him to provide it to the anti-christian culture that surrounds him. There was a reason why Christ,"when questioned by Herod with many words", remained silent. We do not live in a post christian age, we live in the anti-christian age. Post christians and atheists could care less about what happens at a private funeral where families gather to talk to themselves and practice superstitions. But as Marx noted concerning not the revolution itself, but rather its continued development: "Christian love is an obstacle to the development of the revolution. Down with love, we must learn to hate ; only then shall we conquer the universe." It's all about the economy, stupids, and expanding freedoms.