I actually saw vehement denunciations of the altar as UGLY before I saw the pictures today. I'm a simple layman and no artist or aesthete, but it does not look all that bad - in fact, it compares with some of the altars in previous papal Masses that have not drawn the kind of vitriol from critics like Damian Thompson and some Ignatius Insight commentators and readers, for example! My own first reaction to the pictures was that it obviously does not contain any image of Cardinal Newman at all, which is customary at a beatification Mass. Conceivably they could project it on the center panel of the simulated stained-glass window behind the Pope's chair.
Of course, one had hoped for something truly memorable for Cardinal Newman's beatification, but does anyone remember an unforgettably beautiful outdoor papal altar anywhere? Not even perhaps in John Paul II's time when he canonized quite a number of saints in their native countries! In any case, the altar/stage is not the point of any papal Mass at all, but the Mass itself as the Pope celebrates it- a re-creation of the Sacrifice of Christ.
First view of altar
for Papal Mass to
beatify Cardinal Newman
Wednesday, 1st September 2010
This is the first image of the altar being constructed in Birmingham’s Cofton Park in preparation for the beatification of Cardinal John Henry Newman by the Pope.
With a little over two weeks to go until the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI touches down in the UK, images were released by the Catholic Communications Network.
The theme for the visit is “Heart speaks unto Heart” with the message to be displayed on the altar in the centre of the park.
Parts of the park closed on Thursday as construction work began. Access will be limited until the Papal Mass on September 19.
Work began to lay new pathways last week and construction of the stage and altar started this week. This is where Mass will be said and where VIPs and choirs will sit.
Workers will clear space for 65,000 pilgrims. Although all Pilgrim passes given to the Birmingham Archdiocese for the Mass were allocated, some have been returned.
Peter Jennings of the Archdiocese, who has described security measures as “draconian” said passes are now being reallocated.
The Archdiocese already had the largest share of tickets. It was given 14,000 out of a total 65,000, with a further 5,000 made available from under-subscribed areas.
Mr Jennings said: “This is a once in a lifetime opportunity, but sadly some of the older pilgrims feel they aren’t up to the event, which will see people brought to the park in the early hours of the morning. There is no seating for the pilgrims and no cover and as the Mass is going to be televised some people have been in contact to say it is more practical for them to stay at home.
“We are not in a position to give a figure on the number of people who have returned passes but we are reallocating them now.”
The arrival of pilgrims will be managed by coach and timed according to an agreed programme, with first pilgrims to arrive at 2am. Ten thousand letters have been distributed to residents around the park to tell them of arrangements, with a list of road closures expected to be announced.
One can only feel bad for all those who decided it was not worth dealing with the security hassle to attend the papal Mass, but aged persons and people with disabilities clearly cannot be expected to weather the ordeal. The happy thought is that the returned tickets could now be used by others who are in a position to undergo what it takes!
Britain does not have
a divine right to bash Catholics
by Rosamund Urwin
31.08.10
“Pope-bashing is the true national sport,” a devout Roman Catholic once told me. “After all, the English have had nearly five centuries to perfect it.”
That 21st-century Britain is not so different from England in 1533 became apparent to me at university. During Freshers' Week, a Protestant gleefully announced that our “smells, bells and superstitions” guaranteed me fast-track entry to hell.
A few days later, an atheist declared us Catholics a group of “kiddy-fiddlers celebrating cannibalism”.
During the past year, the comments have inevitably grown far nastier. The Church's annus horribilis —
largely of its own making, admittedly — has sparked a string of anti-papist tirades.
[No, 'not largely of its own making', because the Church is not responsible for the individual sins of priests and bishops. For every priest guilty of pedophilia or every bishop guilty of covering for them, how many thousands of regular faithful are committing abortion, to name just one offense?
How many of all the Catholics, eager to show their outrage over sex abuses committed by priests, have shown the same outrage about abortions? Because this is the other major perspective one must have when passing judgment on the Church collectively rather than on the individual offenders. Where is the outrage about other far more widespread offenses?
If one blames the Church for the fact that there are sex offenders among its priests, is she to be blamed likewise for all the abortions? Even if, of course, for theChurch's critics, abortion is a perfectly normal human activity!
So we come back to the concept of sin. Sin is individual and personal because it is committed by individuals - even in institutional crimes such as the Nazi exterminations. In the same way, salvation has to be sought individually and personally. Others may help by praying for one's salvation, but until one acts to obtain that salvation, one is not saved! Monica could have prayed all she wanted, but if Augustine had not decided to turn his back on his worldly ways, we would not have a St. Augustine at all.]
Catholicism's critics have only one focus now: the Pontiff's state visit to our country in just over two week's time. This should be a cause for celebration. Instead, if the anti-Catholic campaigners have their way, the trip will be marred by vuvuzelas, protesters and blocked streets.
Absurdly, Richard Dawkins even called for Benedict XVI to be arrested for “crimes against humanity” as he steps onto our soil. Dawkins sneerily described the Holy Father as a “leering old villain in a frock”, the Church he leads “a child-raping institution”. Which is odd: I thought individuals and not organisations rape people.
The priestly perpetrators should be punished for their crimes, of course, but Dawkins glossed over the Pope's apology, in which the Pontiff wrote that he shared “the sense of betrayal” at “these sinful and criminal acts”.
I am pleased that my religion can take criticism, though. A couple of days ago, I was invited to join a protest on Facebook against the Pope's visit. The group's creators had doctored a photograph to make it look as though the Bishop of Rome was wearing Borat's lime mankini under his robes. I suspect that they would not repeat that trick with an Islamic prophet now.
The problem isn't the attacks against Catholicism, but their delivery and motivation. Dawkins and his ilk make no attempt to engage or debate: they simply seem to enjoy castigating and poking fun.
When they criticise the views of the Church, it smacks of “liberal authoritarianism”: if you don't share their “enlightened” opinions, expect to be ridiculed, your beliefs swiftly dismissed.
Catholicism remains the easiest target for the anti-faith brigade. Our allegiance may be to Rome, but we are not considered so foreign that to attack us means you no longer qualify for membership of multicultural, modern Britain.
Moreover, this antipathy has state support: ours is the only religion discriminated against in the constitution. Were I to marry a royal, they must either renounce their right to the throne or I my religion. Moonies and Holocaust deniers are deemed acceptable mates for a head of state, but not we left-footers.
The extreme anti-Catholic sentiment is counter-productive too. Like many Roman Catholics in this country, I think that the Church needs to change, particularly following the abuse scandals. But the issue is with the institution, not our faith.
Change will come through members of the Church and not by patronising religion-haters haranguing the Vatican — all their hectoring does is cause ranks to close.
[Which is not necessarily negative, as long as closing ranks does not also mean closing off minds from considering constructive criticism.]
When the Pope visits, I can only hope other Brits will decide to give up the more savage side of the Pope-bashing pastime for good.
Design rescue?
A regular follower of Father Z has proposed the design (above left) to 'rescue' the altar-stage design (right) for the Newman beatification Mass. You can decide on its aesthetic merit yourself compared to the actual design. My first reaction is that it is no 'rescue' - it's a different concept and aesthetic altogether.
Altar-stage designers have to meet other basic requirements besides aesthetics: first, simplicity - for ease of assembly and construction, and for cost considerations; and then, engineering specifications adequate to carry all the weight the stage will have to hold, and provide shelter against heat and rain for the altar, the celebrants, and those who must be onstage. In the above 'rescue' design, the altar - which is in front of the elaborate altarpiece - is not sheltered at all.... I must note, however, that having been first off the starting block, Damian Thompson's sarcasm about Scientology and Star Trek fantasies to describe the actual design has influenced everyone else whose comments I have read online so far, even in the Italian blogs! A herd mentality sometimes seems to operate everywhere... BTW, I think the lifesize statue of a seated Cardinal Newman commissioned from JRR Tolkien's sculptor nephew will be set up somewhere on the altar stage for the Mass.
I do not see the ZENIT item this article refers to on ZENIT'S sites, so we'll have to go with what the article attributes to Mr Adamus... The original headline of this item reads 'Senior Catholic blames UK's 'moral wasteland' on equal rights' - but equal rights of course has nothing to do with the story!, so I modified it to reflect what the story actually says... Forget the silly flap over the altar design. It's stories like the following item that really matter because this is the kind of shameless attempt to shut up the Catholic voice in the public square that we will be seeing more of in the next two weeks...
Senior adviser to Mons. Nichols
blames UK's 'moral wasteland'
on abortion and gay rights
By Jerome Taylor
Religious Affairs Correspondent
Wednesday, 1 September 2010
A leading adviser to the Archbishop of Westminster has blamed abortion and gay rights for turning Britain into a "selfish, hedonistic wasteland" which has become "the geopolitical epicentre of the culture of death".
Edmund Adamus, director of pastoral affairs at the diocese of Westminster and an adviser to Archbishop Vincent Nichols, said Parliament had turned Britain into a country which is more culturally anti-Catholic than nations where Christians are violently persecuted such as Saudi Arabia, China and Pakistan.
His comments, made with only weeks to go before Pope Benedict XVI's historic state visit to Britain, will cause embarrassment between organisers of the visit and government officials, because they reveal how some members of the Church's hierarchy believe that the Pontiff is travelling to a hostile and anti-Catholic country.
[But that's the impression one gets from all the media hype of protests, denunciations and insults against the Pope and the Church!]
In an interview with Zenit, a Catholic news agency
with close links to the Vatican [Should we be alarmed that this 'religious correspondent' apparently does not know that ZENIT is the news agency of the Legionaries of Christ????], Mr Adamus railed against five decades of equality legislation and the availability of abortion services in modern Britain.
"Whether we like it or not, as British citizens and residents of this country – and whether we are even prepared as Catholics to accept this reality and all it implies – the fact is that historically, and continuing right now,
Britain, and in particular London, has been and is the geopolitical epicentre of the culture of death," he said.
"Our laws and lawmakers for over 50 years have been the most permissively anti-life and progressively anti-family and marriage, in essence one of the most anti-Catholic landscapes, culturally speaking – more than even those places where Catholics suffer open persecution."
The expression "culture of death" was first coined by John Paul II and is frequently used by Catholic traditionalists as a catch-all phrase covering the practice of abortion, euthanasia and capital punishment.
[And don't all those acts result in death????]
Mr Adamus's comments are significant because of his senior position in one of the most influential dioceses in the country.
[So???? Just because he works for the Archbishop of Westminster, does that deprive him of the right to speak his mind, especially if he is really speaking the truth as orthodox Catholics see it?] Why can the anti-Pope, anti-Church people say the most offensive and insulting things they can - much of it lies - about the Church and the Pope, but Catholics cannot have their say???? THIS DOUBLE STANDARD IS REALLY THE CRUX OF THIS OUTRAGEOUS ARTICLE BY SOMEONE WHO, I AM SURE, CHAMPIONS FREE SPEECH - 'FOR ME BUT NOT FOR THEE'!!!]
His role as pastoral director gives him access to some of the Church's most senior figures, including Archbishop Nichols. He was once a priest at St Augustine's in central Manchester but he left the clergy and married.
In the same interview, he spoke at length about marriage and the role of men and women, pleading with Catholics to "exhibit counter-cultural signals against the selfish, hedonistic wasteland that is the objectification of women for sexual gratification."
He added: "Britain in particular, with its ever-increasing commercialisation of sex, not to mention its permissive laws advancing the 'gay' agenda, is such a wasteland."
Last night, the leader of Catholics in England and Wales distanced himself from the interview. A spokesperson for Archbishop Nichols said the views expressed by Mr Adamus "did not reflect the Archbishop's opinions". [And once again, Vincent Nichols fails to come through in the crunch!!! He could at least have said, "Mr Adamus is expressing his opinions which reflect what the Church teaches, but the timing of his remarks is unfortunate" - or something in the diplomatese that they have become so adept at...]
The rest of the story perpetrates the faux indignation of the very people who have been the most vicious in their ad-hominem attacks on the Pope:
Mr Adamus's comments, however, drew widespread criticism from gay rights groups and secularists. Peter Tatchell, a leading figure behind the Protest the Pope coalition, said: "The suggestion that gay equality laws make Britain a moral wasteland is insulting but not unexpected. The Pope supports legal discrimination against gay people. He says we are not entitled to equal human rights.
"[But] to claim that Britain is the centre of a culture of death is absurd. We are a world leader in scientific research to develop new medical treatments to save lives and we make a significant contribution to helping combat hunger and poverty in developing countries."
Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, added: "This anti-Catholicism of which Adamus complains is shared by most British Catholics, sickened by their church hierarchy's dogma-driven policies on contraception, homosexuality and even abortion. That is why mass attendance here has halved in just 20 years and why only a quarter of Catholics agree with the official line on abortion – and fewer still on homosexuality and contraception."
Ben Summerskill, chief executive of gay rights group Stonewall, said Mr Adamus's comments would do little to foster a healthy atmosphere for the Pope's visit.
"Of course the Pope should visit Britain. But the gratuitously offensive comments being made by the Archbishop's adviser are hardly likely to promote sensitive debate about respect for religion in the 21st century. You would think that, given its present status, the Roman Catholic Church in Britain would be slightly more sensitive about wagging its finger at other people," he said.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 02/09/2010 14:21]