Rob Colquhoun

Thank you very much indeed for sponsoring me to run for the Catholic Children’s Society in the London marathon. We have almost reached our fundraising target of £2,000 for the charity. I visited their headquarters the week of the event and it was great to find out more on the excellent projects they are involved in, such as the counselling services and family centres in Canary Wharf that they run. A recent report by UNICEF (www.unicef-icdc.org/publications/pdf/rc7_eng.pdf) showed Britain having the worst child well being record of 21 industrialised countries- which just shows that you don’t need to go half way round the world to discover poverty.

The marathon was on quite a hot day (22ºC) and that made the race all the harder to run. I managed to get round the course in 4 hours and 13 minutes, slightly slower than anticipated- but it is the taking part that counts! The event was extremely well organised. I ran the event 3 years ago and the goodie bag you receive at the end has got considerably better! There were water bottles every mile. This year I managed to get a glimpse of the leaders of the race as the course doubles back on itself after you have done a circuit of the Isle of Dogs. It was the last 8 miles that were especially difficult as I really ran out of energy this year for the first time (conventionally known as ‘hitting the wall’). After that you have to rely on your reserve energy sources to finish the race!

Thank you very much once again and some pictures below of Richard and myself.

With best regards,

Robert.

Robert Colquhoun

Philosophical Anthropology

What are the most distinctive and significant characteristics of human beings? What do these characteristics tell us about the origin, the purpose, and the final goal of human life? How are these characteristics brought to light or obscured in contemporary Western culture?

Some of the most important aspects of human beings are human dignity, the right to life and self consciousness. These characteristics tell us that we cannot provide an entirely sufficient explanation for our origins and we must delve into the transcendent to discover our purpose and destiny. These characteristics are increasingly obscured in Western culture, which has largely denied the right to life for the unborn.

i/ Human dignity

Human dignity is a principle that states that every single person is intrinsically valuable, a being that should be revered and respected from the very beginning of existence. This inalienable dignity is inviolable because it naturally belongs to every person. This is because man was created in the image of God and therefore humanity is sacred (cf. Gn  1:27). This dignity, inherent in human life and equal in every person, can be understood and seen first by reason. We all have equal dignity because God shows no favouritism.[1] The incarnation made us all equally one in Christ Jesus.[2] The belief and understanding of human dignity can make possible the common and personal growth of everyone (cf. Jas 2:1-9).

The intrinsic dignity of the human person is the foundation of every human right. This is because rights do not determine or grant our nature, it is our essence that gives us an ability to understand rights. The true source of human rights must therefore be in man himself and in God his creator. Human dignity is universal because it is present in all human beings. It is inalienable insofar as “no one can legitimately deprive another person… since this would do violence to their nature.”[3] This dignity means that the human being “is a good toward which the only adequate response is love. It is the kind of good that does not admit of use and cannot be treated as an object of use or a means to an end.”[4] We did not personally create our own bodies and therefore we must be willing to be accountable for our lives and also to be grateful for our existence in the first place.

If we accept this principle of human dignity, we should also accept that we have dignity from conception and do not develop dignity as a gradual process. Psalm 139:11-18 describes the wonder of a God who created our inmost self and knit us together in the womb. Our dignity is present from the very first moment of our life at conception until natural death. As this principle is inherent and inviolable it is impossible to grant or rescind such a right. Therefore, we are encouraged to cherish the value of dignity and protect it in law. We must celebrate and pledge to defend the dignity of every human person. The declaration on religious freedom of the Second Vatican Council acknowledged that human dignity was one of the most important human values,[5] which helps us to see the highest norm of human life as the divine law.

Human dignity has substantial statements about the origins of man. As it is based on the argument of imago dei, which shows us that God created man to be at the centre and summit of the created world. Human dignity demonstrates that we are profoundly related to God and that we have a capacity for God. Aquinas noted that man’s resemblance to God is shown in his intellect, because his relationship with the object of his knowledge is like God’s relationship with his creation.[6] It is also because of the soul that the whole human person contains such great dignity, because the soul is created directly by God.[7]

Human dignity shows that we can find fulfilment through intimacy and relationships. First we are called to be in relationship with God whom we naturally tend. Second, we are called to be in communion with fellow members of our race as we are social beings in need of others to develop our potential. Third we are called as responsible stewards of the world of plants and animals (Cf. Gn 2:20). Man is also in relationship with himself. Through this he can see what differentiates him from every other creature. Man cannot know the precise details of the origins of history because Scripture says “he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to end.” (Eccles 3:11).

Human dignity demonstrates that the purpose of man is God and his plan of salvation. Man’s dignity also lies in observing the moral law by which he is judged.[8] A human person should not be manipulated for goals that are contrary to that purpose. The human person should not be the means for carrying out unjust economic, social or political projects which are against his own freedom. Therefore careful guards and restrictions need to be placed on freedom to ensure that man is recognised as an active and responsible subject.

A just society will only exist if it bares some conformity and respect to the transcendent dignity of the human person. The ultimate end of society should be ordered towards the person.[9] This is because the social order and its development should work towards the benefit of the human person and not the other way round. Therefore all areas of human life must be inspired by the awareness of the primacy of each human being over society.[10]

The moral life bears witness to the dignity of the person.[11] Due to human dignity, the human person is the “subject, foundation and goal”[12] of human society.

The principle of human dignity is a foundational stone in the moral law. It is difficult to articulate into juridical, political and legal frameworks. However, the United Nations declaration of human rights states as its first point “All human beings are free and equal in dignity and rights.”[13] It is therefore considered imperative in all countries that this value is upheld by government and culture in order to respect the value of the human person. Legislation in Western countries has tried to show that rights grant dignity, but in reality dignity is the moral basis for rights that are granted by the state. 

Recent bioethical developments such as embryonic stem cell research and human cloning have led to new debates over the dignity of the human person. Such debates must involve the definition of personhood. Boethius considered a person an individual of rational nature, while Locke saw a person as a thinking, intelligent being that has reason and reflection and can consider itself as itself. These debates also question the beginning of life.

The United Kingdom has some of the most permissive bioethical legislation in the world. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has granted licences for many research projects that involve experimentation on embryos in the first fourteen days of life. Such disrespect for the very first stages of human life has yielded no results: there is not one medical use as a result of embryonic stem cell research. These unprecedented moves have partly been encouraged by utilitarianism and financial incentives. The description of cloning into ‘reproductive’ and ‘therapeutic’ cloning is inaccurate because both involve the destruction of the human person. Such arguments have made presumptions about the ensoulment of the human person.

However, other legislative moves have affirmed and strengthened our concept of dignity in different areas. The recognition of a minimum wage in Britain in 1999 helped to recognise a minimum value of dignity in work and prevented financial exploitation. Legislation that has prevented sexual discrimination has helped to prevent injustice and bias against employees. Legislation that has made buildings more accessible (such as the disability discrimination act of 1995) has considered the dignity of all in society. This has helped those with mobility problems play a dignified role in society. 

ii/ The right to life

The dignity of the person possessed by every person from conception to natural death is the basis for everyone’s right to life. In its broadest sense, the right to life respects the importance of human life. In a certain sense, the source and synthesis of these rights is religious freedom, understood as “the right to live in the truth of one’s faith and in conformity with one’s transcendent dignity as a person.”[14] The recognition of the right to life is an indicative sign of “man’s authentic progress in any regime, in any society, system or milieu.”[15]

As we have a right to life, it is important that we see the need to celebrate human life and all the gifts it entails. This very right provides the foundation for all other rights. The right implies the illicitness of every form of procured abortion and of euthanasia. It is essential that we protect human life in its most vulnerable forms, from conception to the very end of natural life, because the most vulnerable members of our society cannot protect themselves.

It is also important to be on our guard with the development of complex ethical questions that are concerned with our right to life. It is evident that God intended us to have life in abundance as our souls are the principle of life. If we are entitled to a position on God’s earth, it must be because he willed us into existence. On the surface, it appears that the final goal of human life can only end in death and non-existence. Yet our right to life points towards our desire and quest for eternal life. Our capacity to love, seek truth and have rights that are universal all point towards eternity because as ideas they make more sense when they are not contained within the bounds of time and human history.

Contemporary Western culture does not aspire to uphold the principle of the right to life with sufficient respect. The Universal Declaration of Human rights states in article 3 that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”[16] The United States declaration of independence declares the right to life to be one of the unalienable rights. The European Convention on Human Rights states almost immediately that “Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law.”[17] In reality these documents have not prevented the denial of right to life in many countries.

In the U.S.A., The legalisation of abortion in 1973, through a constitutional amendment to the right of privacy, did not uphold the right to life. In the U.K. the partial legalisation of induced abortion in 1967 has created a situation today in which approximately 186,400 such abortions occur annually.[18] From the European Union, only Malta, Portugal, Ireland and Poland still uphold the right to life with serious restrictions for induced abortions.

Overall the right to life for the unborn has been radically denied in Western culture as a result of the sexual revolution. The anti-natalist stance was encouraged by a promotion of sexual freedom in society, devoid of responsibility and consequences. Initially, concern about the dangers of illegal abortions, combined with compassion for women with babies with serious disabilities helped to provide a legal framework for the legalisation of abortion. But recently, the use of ultrasound has shown the humanity of the child in the womb, and many scientists are discovering the full extent of the physical and psychological damage of abortion.[19]

In the last few years, there has been an attempt to deny life at the end of life. Oregon, Holland and Switzerland were among the first places to legalize voluntary euthanasia and to believe in a ‘right to die.’ This has had the consequence of diminishing palliative care, placing elderly patients in considerable danger, creating distrust between doctors and patients and recreating the role of the doctor in society as an agent of death. The Mental Capacity act 2005 in Britain has legalised euthanasia by omission by defining food as medical treatment. A bill to legalize voluntary euthanasia was narrowly defeated by the House of Lords in 2006 by 140 votes to 100. The Council of Europe has been defiant in recognizing the dangers of euthanasia in recent years. The renaming of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society to ‘dignity in dying’ shows us that the manipulative power of playing with terminology can leave words devoid of proper meaning.

Iii/Self-consciousness

A clear feature of human beings is self-consciousness. This characteristic is a clear and unexplainable boundary in the difference between humans and other animals. Man is the only creature willed by God for itself,[20] especially so that man may be “under the control of his own decisions.” (Sir 15:14). Through this gift we are fully aware of our surroundings and that one exists as a being. Man exists as a unique and unrepeatable being, which has the capacity for self-understanding, self possession and self determination. As man is conscious and intelligent, he can determine and reflect on himself and his actions. However, even if man did not have self-consciousness he would still be defined as a person, because it is the person who is the basis of the acts of intellect, consciousness and freedom. Our conscience is a clear indicator of the depth of our self-consciousness, because we are aware of our own actions and their consequences in the moral sphere.

Self-consciousness is an experience that can only be fully grasped and analyzed through philosophical reflection. It shows the mystery of the origin of man because any purely scientific explanation is radically incomplete. The fact that we cannot account for self-consciousness by science alone has damaging implications for the materialist version of evolution. The fact we are aware of ourselves provides us with an insurmountable and unfathomable barrier between mankind and the rest of the animal kingdom. Our reason alone encourages us to believe that only God could grant us such a gift. It is important to recognise that this is not a fault line between science and religion and that in fact there is no conflict between the Catholic faith and evolution provided we do not lose sight of certain points.[21]

“The concept of original solitude includes both self-consciousness and self determination.”[22] Self-consciousness is one of the most important parts of the account of Genesis. It shows us that man gave us the responsibility of tilling the earth and to be capable, free conscious agents. Through conscience and self awareness man is capable of choosing between good and evil, life and death. This self awareness arises through having a body and realising that man in the beginning was alone.

Self-consciousness is almost universally accepted in Western contemporary culture but frequently forgotten about. The self reflective question of ‘Who am I?’ can be most satisfactorily answered by the gift of self. A sense of awe, wonder and humility is often the response of philosophers who fully recognise this feature of humanity. This phenomenon allows us to step back from concrete situations in front of us and even see ourselves thinking.

Self-consciousness is mostly accepted as connected to reason. Our intellect is more open to free will, understanding and conscience. The contemporary account of evolution that denies a position for the creator cannot fully explain or rationalise self-consciousness, and instead must presume that it is a force that has naturally developed. Such an interpretation assumes the human person to be a meaningless product of evolution. 

BABIES – A play on teenage pregnancy and relationships.

By Robert Colquhoun

Tententheatre, a new theatre-in-education company, gave a performance of BABIES in the London last night. The play is on a national tour this year, visiting schools and other institutions.

The plot is based around the relationship of two teenagers: Annie and Joe. Annie discovers she is pregnant at 17. Her boyfriend Joe says he will support her, whatever she decides to. There are surprising reactions as they inform parents. The play explores the issue of teenage pregnancy and relationships in a dramatic, personal and thought provoking fashion.

Theatre-in-education has proven to be a successful medium to communicate with young people, enabling their thinking and development. This project should help to challenge and provoke teenagers’ opinions on the nature of parenthood and the consequences of pre-marital sexual activity. As Britain now has one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in Europe, this play is a vital witness in educating teenagers towards responsible actions in a non judgmental format. The play will help to encourage a culture of life in young people.

The BABIES theatre project includes further resources for Key stage 4 and sixth form students. The play is being conducted in partnership with the charity LIFE. Most performances will include a discussion workshop with the actors and an interactive session with a LIFE speaker. This aims to look at the responsibilities of sexual activity and the implications of teenage pregnancy and abortion.

BABIES is part of the One Life programme, a series of plays and resources that will tour schools, universities and young offender institutes nationwide. The programme aims to promote and advance the social, moral and spiritual education of children through theatre productions and drama workshops. One Life has ambitious targets for the next few years and a variety of projects in the pipeline.

For more information, please go to: www.tententheatre.co.uk

Robert Colquhoun                    Introduction to Liturgy II

In the light of the history of the Mass compare the Tridentine Ordo Missae  of Pius V (1570) with the Paul VI’s Missal (1974), examining the differences and offering an explanation for the changes which have been introduced.

The Missal of Paul VI (1974) both complemented and had many differences[1] to its predecessor, the Trindentine Ordo Missae of Pius V (1570). The differences arose out of a desire of the fathers of the Second Vatican Council to lead people to devout and active participation in the liturgy, and to draw up texts to express more clearly the holy things they signify.[2] Some differences were due to a greater understanding and appreciation of the Eucharistic mystery in Christian antiquity.

The Council of Trent had inaugurated four subsequent centuries of “rigidity and fixation”[3] in the area of the liturgy. Bouyer describes sixteenth and seventeenth century liturgy as “antiquarian pageantry”[4] which had “two centuries old fossilization and stultification of the rites and formulae of liturgy.”[5] Little was known in the sixteenth century of liturgy prior to the tenth or eleventh centuries,[6] and Trent was largely concerned with liturgical abuses and doctrinal issues of the time. The Council of Trent did not go into liturgical matters in detail in the last session, leaving the task to Pius V.[7] This in tern led to the Missal of 1570 being “merely a tributary of the 1474 Missal of the Curia.”[8] Consequently, liturgy developed to become at times more an exclusive clerical activity, where the science of rubrics was of considerable importance. Pius V’s Missal presented the Church with an “instrument of liturgical unity,”[9] in an age of heresy and liturgical chaos. The repercussions of such uniformity in the subsequent centuries was that little attention was paid to the people, who on the whole attended Mass and participated by listening and watching.[10] Paul VI’s Missal managed successfully to “recover the meaning of the assembly”[11] by introducing the full, conscious and active participation of all the faithful called for by Sacrosanctum Concilium.[12] Howell has convincingly argued that the 1570 Missal was based on a “defective concept of liturgy”[13] with the retention of Latin leading to the unintelligibility and exclusion of the laity.

Paul VI’s Missal managed to preserve the deposit of faith contained within the practice of liturgy whilst simultaneously bringing in considerable changes which reinvigorated the liturgy as a celebration of the whole Christian community and restored to the liturgy to the vigour of the holy fathers.

One of the most substantial differences was the reintroduction of concelebration. This helped to further emphasize the fraternity and unity of Priesthood[14] and the unity of the Christian flock. In order to facilitate concelebration, the words of the Lord were changed to be identical in each form of the canon. The promotion of communion under both species for the laity[15] helped to bring a greater love for the Eucharist and brought back a practice of the Early Church. Communion in both kinds helps to express the fullness of the Sacrament’s largesse.[16] Reception of the Eucharist in the hand was restored.

As the Second Vatican Council encouraged liturgy to be adapted to the culture and genius of various peoples[17], and National Episcopal Conferences were allowed to make important liturgical decisions. The Council also allowed the practice of liturgical diversity that had been more manifest in the variety of texts over the centuries. This model of diversity within unity was extremely helpful in reuniting the spiritual life with liturgical sources and expression and allowing rites to be within people’s powers of comprehension. As different groups, regions and peoples were allowed to have a more adapted Missal and liturgy, this helped to end, “three centuries of liturgical immobility.”[18] Most importantly, this transition did not prevent the retention of the sound authentic tradition of the celebration of the Eucharist. The changes helped to open and enliven a theology of the liturgy that had been brewing in the Church for some time.[19] Lambert Beaudin of Mont Cesar had spoken of ‘democratizing’ the liturgy which would help to enliven, diversify and enhance Christian communities.[20]

The order of the Mass was simplified in the twentieth century reforms. Parts that were repeated were eliminated, especially in the breaking of bread, offering of bread and wine and communion. The prayers at the end of Mass were eliminated.[21] The apologies, exposition during Mass, genuflections, 26 signs of the cross, kisses and bells were simplified. These changes helped to bring the clarity and simplicity of the liturgy of the early Church. In the 1974 Missal, The prayers while vesting were not continued.  Only one collect was used and the Confiteor was simplified. On the whole small gestures were eliminated in the Eucharistic prayer.[22] This peeling off of layers helped to place the Paschal mystery at the centre of the celebration of Mass and a return to the sources of tradition and participation.

The Kiss of peace was restored by the twentieth century reforms. Under the Missal of Pius V it had been a kiss to the paten and exchanged among clergy only at solemn Masses. St. Justin Martyr describes how “At the conclusion of the prayers we greet one another with a kiss.”[23] Parts of the Mass that have been restored to the “earlier norm of the holy Fathers”[24] are the homily, the general intercessions or prayer of the faithful, and the penitential rite at the beginning of Mass.

A large difference was the change with the Eucharistic prayer. Paul VI’s Missal instructed the prayer to be read in a clear voice rather than a low voice in order that people could hear and be involved in the prayer. Three new forms of the Eucharistic prayer were added to the old Roman Canon. Paul VI’s Missal enriched the liturgy with a further great variety of prefaces that were originally from the ancient Roman Church. These changes helped to highlight prayers of thanksgiving and different parts of the mystery of salvation. This helped to bring an enrichment of variety and mode of prayers in the liturgy. Some have questioned whether this diversification has allowed the sacrificial aspect of the liturgy to be emphasized in the new Eucharist prayers.[25] The procession of the gifts was restored, and the fraction in communion as the broken host is to be distributed. The super populum was also restored and new formulas were added to the dismissal.

Although the Missal of Paul VI does not include scriptural readings, the Second Vatican Council encouraged an opening of the treasures of the Bible more lavishly in the liturgy. The use of the vernacular certainly helped to facilitate this transition. The cycle of readings changed to a cycle over 3 years, with a more representative portion of Scriptures to be read in this time. On Sundays and feasts the epistle and gospel are preceded by an Old Testament reading (or the Acts of the Apostles at Easter). This was changed to foster a greater love for the word of God and a greater understanding of the mystery of salvation in the words of divine revelation.

The Missal of Paul VI demonstrates the desire to teach and also to be sensitive to doctrinal and pastoral considerations. The Second Vatican Council helped to recover the unity of the liturgy of the word and the Eucharist. The New Rite allows Mass to be said facing the people,[26] in accordance with the need to promote the liturgical instruction of the faithful.[27] This was allowed because the fundamental elements of liturgy cannot be changed but everything else is changeable. The intimate connection between the words and rites is categorically important,[28] not least of all on ensure the knowing, active and fruitful participation in the liturgy which helps to facilitate and derive and abundance of graces from the sacred liturgy.[29] The liturgy at the beginning of the twentieth century was largely a composite of “minute and complicated rules, governing prayers and actions of priests and ministers.”[30] The Second Vatican Council successfully woke up to the attempts to ‘historicize’ and ‘archeologize’ the liturgy from innovations or anything not in recent tradition.[31] The Paul VI Missal helped to simplify the rites, suppress the doublets and restore the elements, bringing liturgy back as real prayer.[32] These innovations were partly due to the most important sources of primitive liturgy just becoming available in print.[33]

The Missal of Paul VI has helped the liturgy to rediscover its ancient roots, of unearthing the liturgy from a culture of “rubricism”[34] and by encouraging the lay faithful to a more active and conscious participation in the liturgy. The result is the mystery of the Eucharist shines through as a communion, sacrifice, thanksgiving and memorial in far greater light. The liturgy of the primitive Church has once again been unearthed in a true liturgical flourishing.

Walk with me

22^nd May 2007

Opening prayer:

Leader: With restless hearts

Response: We gather in your presence, O Lord

Leader: Looking for answers

Response: We gather in your presence, O Lord

Leader: Leaving behind our comforts and distractions

Response: We gather in your presence, O Lord

Leader: We follow in your footsteps – one step at a time

Response: We gather in your presence, O Lord

Leader: In the name of the father…..

Reading 1
Acts 2:1-11

When the time for Pentecost was fulfilled,
they were all in one place together.
And suddenly there came from the sky
a noise like a strong driving wind,
and it filled the entire house in which they were.
Then there appeared to them tongues as of fire,
which parted and came to rest on each one of them.
And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit
and began to speak in different tongues,
as the Spirit enabled them to proclaim.

Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven
staying in Jerusalem.
At this sound, they gathered in a large crowd,
but they were confused
because each one heard them speaking in his own language.
They were astounded, and in amazement they asked,
“Are not all these people who are speaking Galileans?
Then how does each of us hear them in his native language?
We are Parthians, Medes, and Elamites,
inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia,
Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia,
Egypt and the districts of Libya near Cyrene,
as well as travelers from Rome,
both Jews and converts to Judaism, Cretans and Arabs,
yet we hear them speaking in our own tongues
of the mighty acts of God.”

Following a short peiod of silence you may wish to share an image, a thought, a phrase, a question that has struck you.

For Reflection: (extracts from Benedict XVI- Pentecost Sunday 2005)-

The reading provides us with a great image of the mission of the holy spirit. The reading from the Acts of the Apostles speaks of how, on the day of Pentecost, under the signs of a strong wind and fire, the Holy Spirit sweeps into the community of the disciples of Jesus who are in prayer, thus bringing the Church into being.

For Israel- Pentecost- the celebration of the harvest, had become the celebration marking the conclusion of the Covenant on Mt Sinai. In wind and fire, God made his presence known to the people and then gave them the gift of his Law, the Ten Commandments. In this singular way was the work of liberation, begun with the Exodus from Egypt, brought to fulfilment: human freedom is always a shared freedom, a "togetherness" of liberty. Common freedom lasts only in an ordered harmony of freedom that reveals to each person his or her limits.

The Church must always become anew what she already is; she must open the
borders between peoples and break down the barriers between class and race. In her, there cannot be those who are forgotten or looked down upon. In the Church there are only free brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ. The wind and fire of the Holy Spirit must continually break down those barriers that we men and women continue to build between us; we must continually pass from Babel — being closed in on ourselves to Pentecost.

Thus, we must continually pray that the Holy Spirit opens us and gives us the grace of understanding, so that we become the People of God deriving from all peoples.

How does next week’s scripture reading and reflection encourage you? Where are you affirmed? Where are you challenged? What impact might this have on your daily living?

Leader: Aloud or in silence let us bring to the Father our thanks….

Leader: In sorrow let us ask the Father for forgiveness…

Leader: With confidence let us entrust to the Father our cares and concerns…

Lord God,

You sanctify your Church in every race and nation

By the mystery we celebrate on this day.

Pour out the gifts of the Holy Spirit on all mankind,

And fulfil now in the hearts of your faithful

What you accomplished

When the Gospel was first preached on earth

Through Christ our Lord, Amen.

Theological Treatise

My name is Robert, I’m 24, and training to be a Catholic Priest in London.

In an age of great scepticism, I can wholehearted believe that the Catholic Church stands as a pillar of truth in our society.

The Church is capable of answering the deepest and most profound desires and yearnings of the human heart, when we ask: Who am I? Where am I from? Where am I going? What happens when I die? Is there something after this life?

These questions cannot be fully satisfied by pleasure, material comfort or thoughtless speculation.

The desire for God is written in our hearts, and only in God do we find the true happiness that we are looking for. I believe that people are instinctively religious and they yearn for truth and meaning in the spiritual realm.

It was only when I realised that the search for God involved both faith AND reason that I had a greater hunger to discover more about the Saviour that the Church proclaims.

For me, the Christ is able to guide us through life: from reconciliation for when we are sorry, thanksgiving when grateful for the Lord, nourishment when we need food for the journey and inspiration for when our hearts are dry. But only the gift of ourselves to God and to others allows us to truly discover who we are.

Christ supports what is truly beneficial to our society- through him the Church fully supports and venerates the family, human dignity, freedom, conscience and truth.

The sheer thought that there is no God places man as a meaningless product of evolution, who has no destiny beyond the grave. This is nothing but poisonous cynicism- with no creator there is no reason for human beings. This amounts to a philosophy of nothingness with no reason for ethics. But far worse in my mind is agnosticism- God either exists or he doesn’t and therefore maybe is not a valid answer and must be false.

We cannot reject God because others have offended in his name, or because there is evil in the world which is partly our fault. Neither can we justify ignorance in an age of information, or flee his call out of fear and a sinful attitude.

To reject God without searching for him is like being invited to the most extravagant banquet but declining the offer because of pride.

The gifts of the Holy Spirit are part of that great banquet, thanks to Christ, who died and suffered in order that we might be reconciled to God and receive his gifts in abundance. These gifts are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.

Without these great gifts we would be dwelling in a quagmire of spiritual poverty – devoid of the potential for salvation and grace that God makes freely available to us if we listen and obey his word.

In our search for God, it might be dramatic to discover that even we bear a certain resemblance to God, because we are created in his image. Our truth, beauty and goodness are a reflection of the infinite goodness of God, which we cannot fully grasp. Even God’s mercy is infinite and far beyond our comprehension. The excitement of faith is that it is a journey, of progress and self discovery where we can come to know and love God. We see this as the hearts that seek the Lord rejoice.