Magic, Moving ChainsThe internet can be serendipitous. Looking for Imogen Cooper’s 1989 recording of Schubert’s Impromptus, I happened upon this remarkable lecture she gave in Oxford in 2014. I listened to it on a train, entranced. Never have I heard a performer Read More
Full of SchubertOn Sunday evening Dame Imogen Cooper gave her last solo recital at Wigmore Hall, playing Schubert’s Impromptus. In a noble speech at the end, after the Duke of Kent had presented her with the Wigmore Medal, she said she felt Read More
Sea MusicOnly after hearing the world première of Eduardo Soutullo’s Eismeer did I learn that the work was inspired by a painting: Caspar David Friedrich’s canvas bearing the same title. While listening to the music, I kept thinking of this photograph, which Read More
Magic, Moving ChainsThe internet can be serendipitous. Looking for Imogen Cooper’s 1989 recording of Schubert’s Impromptus, I happened upon this remarkable lecture she gave in Oxford in 2014. I listened to it on a train, entranced. Never have I heard a performer engage with her call so eloquently, so movingly. Cooper speaks of music’s ‘quite extraordinary power to pinpoint and localise both the numinous and the dark-shadow areas of the human soul and to give them voice. Such voicing’, she says, ‘brings wonder, pain, relief, performing a role that is quite uniquely cathartic.’ She points out that great geniuses need catharsis as much as the rest of us. How did Beethoven, Schubert deal with their anguish, illness, and isolation? ‘They worked. They went inside themselves and plucked sounds from their imagination to string together into magic and moving chains.’ These are liberating chains. We can enter them.
Full of SchubertOn Sunday evening Dame Imogen Cooper gave her last solo recital at Wigmore Hall, playing Schubert’s Impromptus. In a noble speech at the end, after the Duke of Kent had presented her with the Wigmore Medal, she said she felt overwhelmed on account of the occasion, but also because her ‘heart was still very full of Schubert’. It is a moving thing to witness a great artist perform works that have been the object of a lifetime’s study, analysis, dreams, and backbreaking labour. I have long known and admired Cooper’s recording of the Impromptus from 1989. The way she orchestrates the piano is extraordinary. Sunday’s performance was different, more inward, perhaps. What we give our hearts to grows with us.
2 Sunday AIsaiah 49:3, 5-6: He formed me in the womb to be his servant. 1 Corinthians 1:1-3: Paul, appointed by God to be an apostle. John 1:29-34: I did not know him myself. ‘No’, says the Baptist, ‘I did not know him.’ Indeed, he says it twice in reference to Jesus’s apparition in Bethany, beyond the Jordan, where John was baptising. How may we understand this statement? Surely if anyone knew Jesus, John did? In Luke we read how Mary, shortly after Christ’s conception, went off to stay with Elisabeth, her kinswoman, likewise pregnant. When Mary arrived, and Elisabeth heard her voice, her baby ‘skipped in her womb’. To describe the reaction of John, still unborn, Luke uses a verb with deep Biblical resonance. We find it again in the Greek Old Testament version of a Psalm (Ps 114) which begins with the words: ‘When Israel went forth from Egypt’. This Psalm is one of Scripture’s fundamental accounts of redemption. It tells us how the whole of creation rejoiced when Israel cast off Egypt’s yoke: ‘The sea saw it and fled; Jordan was driven back. The mountains skipped like rams.’ That is how the infant John skipped in the embryonic presence of Jesus. He knew, before he had seen the light of day, who the Redeemer was. At this he rejoiced. How, then, could he say, thirty years on, ‘I knew him not’? Of course, we could explain this business away by saying simply that we’re dealing with different sources. The text we’ve read is John’s; the one about Mary and Elisabeth is Luke’s. Two traditions; two versions of the relationship between Jesus and the Baptist. Perhaps John didn’t have Luke’s text at his disposal? Or perhaps Luke invented the story of the meeting of the unborn to enliven his text? Thus exegetes have argued for decades in voluminous, often dull commentaries. Thank God, we have made progress. We have passed beyond the certainty that we, blessed with critical skills, see everything more clearly than Christians have done for the past 2,000 years; that we are the first to recognise the challenge of reconciling Biblical texts, and therefore have a licence to bracket any awkwardness or simply to dismiss as invention what we do not understand. This approach to the Bible is no longer permissible. We must take the text seriously as it stands. This is more demanding. It is also a lot more interesting. Considering, then, John’s statement again, let us note this: at the Baptism, he does not say about Jesus, ‘I never set eyes on him before’. He says, ‘I knew him not’. Who among us has not experienced that someone we’ve had dealings with for years suddenly reveals a new side of himself or herself, forcing us to admit: ‘I thought I knew him (or her); but now I see I didn’t, really.’ There can be many reasons for such development. Our friend, or spouse, may have been battling with some difficult thing they have not shared with us, whether to spare us concern or themselves humiliation. Once our eyes are opened to what the other has carried secretly, we need to read our common history afresh. Everything appears in a different light. Certain realities we’ve never understood seem at once obvious. Others we thought were straightforward pose questions. We ascertain: ‘I knew him (or her) not. At least not the way I thought I did.’ We must be ready to enlarge our knowledge, to integrate the new thing we have learnt if we wish for a deeper, more truthful relationship. If instead we just hold on to what we thought was an adequate image of the other, our relationship, if it survives at all, will be built on illusion. We shan’t, in fact, be relating to another person, but to our notion of what that person ought to have been. If we see the relationship between Jesus and John in this perspective, a lot is clarified. John’s apparently paradoxical statement, ‘I knew him not’, makes sense. The Gospel shows again and again what the Jewish people expected from God’s redemption. People hoped that the Lord, as in former days, would show his mighty arm, crush enemies, cleanse the Promised Land, and let each true Israelite enjoy his inheritance under his vine and fig tree. This is a hope John the Precursor will have shared. It will have been impressed on his consciousness. That is why he skipped for joy, like the mountains at Israel’s exodus, when the Son of God was incarnate. John’s whole life was directed towards the freeing of Israel. But what did he see when Jesus at last showed himself publicly? Not a sceptred warrior making of his enemies a footstool, but ‘the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world’ — who takes them away by bearing them. The Lamb says, ‘My burden is light’. He bids us, ‘Bear my burden with me’. We do well to ask ourselves: Do I choose to know Jesus, the Lamb of God, as he lets himself be known, or do I nurture an image of him born of my fancy? The Lord meets us here, in the sacred mysteries. The mysteries make the Lamb’s sacrifice present and draw us into that sacrifice. Let us ask for grace to see him and receive him as he is, to enter his broad and spacious joy, and not to stay hanging around outside, enclosed in our own, all too narrow expectations. The Meditations of St John the Baptist, which you can see in the Museo Lázaro Galdiano in Madrid.
A Nuptial HomilyHomily given at the Nuptial Mass for the marriage of Patricia Pauline Jane Boon and Ole Bendik Heggtveit. Ephesians 5.22-23: This mystery is profound. John 2.1-11: You have kept the good wine until now. That grand theoretician of Western civilisation, Mae West, famously declared: ‘Marriage is a fine institution, but I’m not ready for an institution.’ She was right: marriage has an institutional aspect. Spouses undertake a mutual obligation that has relational, civic, and financial consequence. The Christian understanding of such obligation has been a stumbling block since the days of our Lord. A key factor that caused keen groupies to draw back from discipleship was Christ’s teaching on marriage. The radicality of it was more than they could bear. These days, most people have but foggy ideas of what the Gospel teaches, but they know they’re against it. A recent essay in the TLS argued for the abolition of marriage as an institution, pace Miss West, on the grounds that marriage has been a ‘mechanism for maintaining the gendered division of labour, for regulating men’s access to women’s bodies, and for giving men ownership and control of children’. Well, if that were all there is to it, good riddance! Only, it isn’t, of course. We can be grateful to Patricia and Ole Bendik for recalling us to this fact. They have put before us Paul’s teaching on marriage in his letter to the Ephesians. This text was written when the Apostle was old, imprisoned, and awaiting pretty certain execution. The rhetorical edge of his earlier writings is gone, almost. There’s no time for it; he has essentials to convey. Paul’s great matter is this: he affirms that as Christians we really subsist in Christ. His life is ours. A Christian does not just adhere to certain notions; he or she is being transformed in a communion of love. When we think of ourselves as ‘members of Christ’s Body’, it isn’t by way of metaphor; it is a statement of fact. Apart from him we decompose, we lose our consistency and vitality. He on his part desires our full and vibrant incorporation, for a body, to function with joyfulness and grace, longs to be whole. The Christian union of man and wife is to Paul the embodied sign of this spiritual calling. The institutional aspect of marriage is not its core. Marriage, says Paul, is a mystery, that is, a sacrament. What’s a sacrament? An instance of a concrete procedure that by providential agency becomes a vehicle of sanctifying grace, thereby both remaining and transcending itself. Dear Patricia and Ole Bendik, you now consecrate yourselves to each other until death because you love each other and wish to construct your lives on the basis of that love always. That is magnificent. But it is not all. By administering the sacrament of wedlock to one another, having it blessed by the Church, you open your shared love to Christ’s. You call him into it as fire, to enlighten, warm, and purify. To say you are henceforth one detracts nothing from the genius of each. No, what you are in particular is splendidly enhanced by what in common you become. Together you are to manifest Christ’s love, enabling him, by your fidelity, to make your lives’ water wine, to let your union become a hospitable, festive anticipation of the Kingdom, which for good reason is likened to a wedding feast. ‘Love’ is a big word. The way we tend to use it, we associate it with strong emotion. Yet few relationships, even the happiest, are marked by a continuos ecstasy of sentiment. Paul wisely extends his terminology. Speaking of married love he speaks of reverence, submission, respect, self-giving. These are quotidian articulations of the time-surpassing love to which you pledge yourselves. Love is not least a matter of well-kept promises. ‘Let your yes be yes, your no be no’, says our Lord. The principle holds for all, but is especially important in marriage. Be truthful. Shun deceit. And never take each other for granted. You are getting married on the feast of St Antony the Great, a fourth-century Egyptian hermit. He is at once distant and close. Like you, he decided to structure his existence on Christ’s love. He applied it with coherence in his work, relationships, and spiritual paternity until he died at about 105. On his deathbed he distilled his experience in two counsels. He said: ‘Let Christ be the air you breathe’; then, ‘Live as if you began your consecration today’. The same applies to you. Let Christ be the atmosphere in which your married life unfolds; and receive one another with wonder each day. Be grateful for each other. Remember to say ‘Thank you’, not least for little things. Tend carefully to the regular, institutional commitment you undertake; but never let your love be institutionalised. The preface of this nuptial Mass refers to marriage as blandum concordiæ iugum et insolubile vinculum pacis: ‘A sweet yoke of concord and an unbreakable bond of peace’. It’s a lovely phrase! It represents at once a benediction and a task. God grant you joy as you give yourselves to this task! May you be blessed by it; and may you be a blessing for all those whom your joined, concordant lives touch. Amen. The Marriage at Cana, c. 1495/1497, by the Master of the Catholic Kings, now in the National Gallery of Art.
Sea MusicOnly after hearing the world première of Eduardo Soutullo’s Eismeer did I learn that the work was inspired by a painting: Caspar David Friedrich’s canvas bearing the same title. While listening to the music, I kept thinking of this photograph, which I saw in an exhibition recently: Herbert George Ponting’s shot from a grotto within an iceberg, captured while he accompanied Scott on his expedition to the Antarctic in 1911. Soutullo’s composition is forceful and very beautiful. I can’t think of any musical work, other than Debussy’s La Mer, that evokes the sea with such immediacy.
Home
Radio Maria have a stand at the Hope Conference happening tomorrow in St. John's Rest and Care Centre, Knock Shrine Pop in and say hello, we would love to meet you. Hear from fantastic speakers, including Clint Valentine (who does Read More
Day 5 of Week of Prayer for Christian Unity: Keep a journal for a week (or for seven days spread out over a period of time), reflecting each day on the meaning of your baptism or Christian initiation..#wpcu2026Read More
𝑾𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒍𝒆𝒏𝒅 𝒂 𝒉𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒖𝒔? Preparation has well and truly started for the Cloyne Lourdes Pilgrimage 2026 😊 We are always looking for adult helpers to join our team in Lourdes. ➡️ If you would be interested in volunteering with Read More 1 Likes
