Tuesday, 1 March 2011

It's St David's Day! Rejoice!

I keep this prayer card in my wallet
I can put it no better than the correspondent to this blog, R Wyn Jones who sent a message saying:

"The sun is shining the daffodils are out and its a good day to be alive in God's own country."

Amen to that. St David performed many miracles and carried out many mortifications including standing neck deep in cold water for hours on end.

Well, the sun shining today feels like a miracle, because for the last month or two it's felt like I've been neck-deep in water!

But in all seriousness let us celebrate! Celebrate our national Saint, celebrate a wonderful man of God, celebrate a Priest who offered the Sacrifice of the Mass, celebrate a great Monastic who kept (the Celtic parts of) these lands Christian through the Dark Ages, keeping the Catholic and Roman Faith alive after the disintegration of the Roman Empire.

And in realising that St David was a truly great Briton and a Catholic, should remind us that the very roots of civilisation, law and all that was/is good is founded in Catholicism.

Remember: you don't have to be Welsh to celebrate and venerate St David.

Happy St David's Day to one and all.


P.S. Go to St David's in Pembrokeshire! It is a beautiful place. You can see the place where St David was born (St Non's Chapel) and remember: two pilgrimages to St David's is worth one to Rome.

11 comments:

  1. We have our Referendum tomorrow, of course, as Wales - hopefully - takes another proud step into the future. And I was glad that the Welsh bishops came out with a statement very much in favour of the whole devolution project.

    And spring just around the corner as well!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, I am always a little wary of political announcements from the Church but I think they were broadly correct. The nearer your politicians are the more answerable/accountable they are (from memory that featured in the Bishops' statement) I just wish the Welsh assembly wouldn't kow-tow to brussels quite as much (for the same reason).

    I can't believe the sun has shone for 3 days or so. I think I'm almost dried out! ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  3. It was a wonderful - and astonishing - result.

    Yes, the Church is in favour of devolution, because it believes in subsidiarity. I have no problem with Europe, we Welsh have always been a proud European nation. And, as someone who listens intently to what is said in Rome, it comes quite naturally!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I too love Europe (we have become seperated from it since the Reformation) but I don't love the EU. It is Masonic, Socialistic, undemocratic (the commission/government is placed not voted in) it is corrupt (accounts not signed off), it is anti-family and at heart anti-Catholic. If the EU became accountable, pro-Christian, pro-family then I would find "believing in" the project more feasible.

    Non of that stops me being proud to be Welsh and European. It is out of love of Europe we should seek the root and branch change in the EU.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "It is Masonic, Socialistic, undemocratic..."

    I'm afraid that I really rather cringe at such over the top statements - it reminds me of the paranoid American right wing lobby.

    'Masonic' - I would be against that, but see no possible evidence to support the assertion.

    'Socialistic' - I would regard myself as a socialist. Are you denying my right to call myself a Catholic as a result? That would disqualify quite a few thousand Welsh men and women.

    'Undemocratic' - Certainly not perfect, but look at the corruption and greed at Westminster. Not much to gloat about. Added to that, dubious royals with dubious contacts and practices.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It is Masonic in that it follows the false democracy of the French Revolution and is deeply anti-Catholic; it is extremely anti-democratic in that its ruling body which passes all laws is NOT voted in, and the MEPs cannot overturn rulings of the commission (those placemen). It makes Westminster look cleaner than clean (and wow that is something).

    With its anti-Catholic laws, it's unassailable politburo, and its absolute corruption it is socialist just as the USSR was socialist (and its form of atheistic communism WAS condemned by Papal encyclical).

    I know it's controversial, but the current brand of EU is seperated from the USSR by degrees (policy by persuasion rather than force).

    As a pro-European (I am Catholic!) I see nothing worse than a European Union that is Masonic, Socialistic, Undemocratic and Corrupt - because it undermines what Europe should truly be: Catholic, pro-Family, Pro-Life, and I believe the Papal encyclicals give us enough guidelines for policies whether workers' rights, poverty etc. without having to turn to parties that are pro-abortion and undermine the rights of the Family (the basic unit of any free country).

    I laugh when democrats support the EU as it is almost the most undemocratic system imaginable (worse in some ways because it pretends to be democratic for its talking shop) and anyone seeking openness, accountability etc. in Brussels has the police and EU laws turned on them (in real mirror of Soviet style bullying).

    Private Eye magazine has pretty much exposed most of this EU corruption, bullying and undemocratic nature over the years.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oh well, I guess we'll just have to disagree on this one - and I think I'd need a rather more authoritative voice than Private Eye!!

    Can you name any British political party that is anti-abortion?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Private Eye may have some faults, but they pretty much have the EU summed up: corrupt and undemocratic. It's a shame that some people let their love of Europe blind their eyes to the deeply unEuropean/unChristian nature of the EU (I remind you that the EU ruling body is NOT elected).

    There is no party that is pro-life, unless you count the pressure group candidates. That shows that things have been 'stitched up'. The more "socialist" ones tend to be more pro-abortion.

    I always find this weird, I don't think one solves poverty by killing the poor!

    I am reminded of the essay by GK Chesterton standing up for the right of poor girls to have long flowing hair (some imbecile said they should have all their hair shorn to get rid of nits). sadly some people seek to stamp on poor people rather than fight poverty itself.

    ReplyDelete
  9. We don't disagree about abortion, I'm sure.

    Though I do have a problem with the idea that right wing parties are supportive of the poor!

    I'm also scandalized with how our Church mainly on a local level, though also with tacit (at least) support from the Vatican, could have so easily identify herself with fascist regimes in Spain and Chile, for instance.

    ReplyDelete
  10. i dont think right wing parties do support the poor! (not to date anyway). i am sure the person GKC took on in the 'shave the hair of the poor girls' debate was right-wing. i just find it bizarre that most [not all] left wingers think the idea of helping the poor is to kill their children.

    There will always be exceptions to the rule (e.g. many people say Iain Duncan Smith has a genuine concern for the poor, just as some left-wingers are genuinely pro-life)

    There's a great book 'Blood of the Martyrs' by Fr Welch all about abortion in America. In that book he says what a culture shock it was to discover the majority of (for want of a better label) left-wigers, after opposing brutal murder in Vietnam, went on to support the mass murder of innocents in America. Some pro-life left-wingers could not understand how mass murder is right in abortuaries, but wrong by napalm.

    For the Vatican, I think that unless a regime ios vehemently anti-Catholic it will always take a neutral line, because it's ultimate responsibity is the safety of Catholics under that regime.

    Many Catholics, according to most historians I've read, thought the Excommunication of Elizabeth I was a mistake as it made the lot of English Catholics all but impossible.

    The Vatican always has to do a balancing act in these matters and I'm sure (whether Elizabeth I, Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia) only condemns as an absolute last resort, even when innocents are being killed (that's not to say they don't act in other ways - diplomatic, helping refugees etc).

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'm very uncomfortable with your

    "For the Vatican, I think that unless a regime ios vehemently anti-Catholic it will always take a neutral line, because it's ultimate responsibity is the safety of Catholics under that regime."

    because you are, in my opinion, quite, quite wrong, as the standards expected from the Church and the Vatican should be far, far higher than that. The Church should always strive for justice, and should always - as Christ did - oppose oppression. In the face of oppression, Christ was never neutral.

    ReplyDelete