Abbey-Roads2

Blessed William Horne.

This morning I was reading about the Carthusian martyrs, particularly Blessed William Horne and his companions.  William shares his feast day with St. John Vianney, who at one time wanted to leave Ars to become a Carthusian himself.  Brother William was one of ten Carhusians who refused to take the anti-papal Oath of Supremacy - this after twenty other Carthusians did sign it.  The ten monks were arrested eleven days later, chained in a standing position, and left to starve to death.  After four months, they all died, except for Brother William.  No one knows why, but he was kept alive and spent nearly three more years in prison - obviously not still chained in a standing position.  Continually refusing to sign the oath, William, wearing his Carthusian habit was hanged, drawn and quartered on August 4, 1540.

“Even the elect…”

Twenty out of thirty Carthusians signed the oath.  Carthusians, considered one of the holiest orders in the Church; a monastic life with emphasis on prayer, recollection, penance, and so on, was sometimes considered a veritable preparation for martyrdom, if not a sort of bloodless martyrdom.  Scary thought isn’t it - understandable of course - but to think such holy giants as Carthusians would refuse to die for Christ.

“So if you think you are standing, watch out that you do not fall.” - 1 Corinthians 10:12

For years and years monastic life, along with any strict-observant religious life seemed to me to be the bastion of holiness and mysticism.  I so often regarded enclosed religious as living saints - and I’m certain many of them are.  Nevertheless, there has always been an element of unreality in my esteem, some might call it “magical thinking” - I think of it as “mystical thinking” or “fantasy”.  Actually, it boils down to idealism - very human idealism.  It goes along with our holy-card piety, our longing for religious in habits - walking through Romanesque cloisters with their hoods up.  Although we often need such icons at various stages of our life to stimulate and encourage us spiritually, holiness does not consist in these things. 

“Take no man for an example, revere him not, for the devil will show you his faults.” - St. John of the Cross

You see, as the psalmist tells us, “God remembers that we are dust” (Psalm 103:14)  - something we fallen human beings forget or let ourselves get into denial about - thus resorting to an idealism which can perhaps border on idolatry.  Lay people, as St. Teresa always repeated, place extremely high expectations upon religious, and very often, what would pass unnoticed in secular life as a fault, is seen as scandalous when it comes to religious life.  Human activity and behavior continues, whether in a monastery or convent, or in a family, a parish, a school, or amongst friends.  God knows this - and yet we so easily expect perfection from others, while we remain quite content in our own imperfection.

Keeping our eyes fixed on Christ rather than the weaknesses of others.

It seems to me what is very important for us to understand, which very proud people like myself must continually strive to do (or else learn it the hard way through repeated falls from grace, various sufferings, or even through dark nights of depression and failure),  - is to begin to realize - and accept - that we are all extremely frail human beings and capable of betraying Christ - even if we are the last one standing. 

Still standing.

Imagine Brother William, imprisoned for three more years, just for remaining faithful to the pope, and dying such a horrible death - for something considered socially irrelevant in 16th century London.  How easily he could have fallen, had he not humbly placed all of his trust in Christ, depending upon him alone, knowing nothing could separate him from Christ’s love.  With Christ, the martyrs inspire and perfect our faith- but our hope and faith and love must be placed in Christ our God alone.  The martyrs and saints inspire, but God alone perfects.

“Nevertheless I am continually with thee: thou hast holden me by my right hand. Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel, and afterward receive me to glory. Whom have I in heaven but thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee. My flesh and my heart faileth: but God is the strength of my heart, and my portion for ever.” - Psalm 73: 23-26      

Noise.

“I can’t talk now, I’m on the phone!” was a line from “Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman” - Louise Lasser’s character was explaining to the party she was speaking to on the phone, why she couldn’t talk at the moment.  I know!  Although it kind of makes sense in todays culture, when everyone seems to be always on the phone, or texting, or plugged into their ipod, or just online.  Interconnected… and yet still so superficial.

The sounds of silence…

Is now listening to other people’s phone conversations on the street corner or in the grocery store.  These days I’m cat-sitting and taking care of a friend’s house while he is home in Washington, D.C. taking care of his mother who is ill.  He lives in a very fashionable area of Minneapolis called Kenwood, and in order to get there I drive through the Lake neighborhoods and pass through a trendy area of town, known as Uptown.  The area has long been the cool area of town, it was the same when I hung out there, and it was the same for the generation before me - which makes me laugh because we all grew up, got old, are on our way to the grave, and that coolness, along with its youthful beauty and freaky clothes is long gone - just as it will be for the new cool people in a few years.  Although they are all VIP now.  But I digress.

I can’t talk now, I’m online. 

Anyway, what I have noticed going back and forth is how it seems everyone is plugged into something.  Drivers seem to always be on the phone, as do walkers.  I noticed several people carrying grocery bags as they walked with ipods plugged into their ears, although some were using hands-free phones - you know, the ones with the ear piece that looks like a hearing aid.  No one is quiet any longer, silence seems to be a lost art.  Reflection is only something one experiences in a mirror or store window.

“Shut-up!”

It occurred to me that not only is the new attention-craving generation more coddled than any before - even in employment their need for affirmation and approval cannot tolerate the least bit of indifference - but they have been raised with unending noise and entertainment which accustomed them to require a steady flow of music, conversation, and distraction.  Think about it - most of them were raised with toys that were interactive - they spoke, they sang, they had bells and whistles - and these were the inanimate objects.  Then of course they got their computers and computer games, and spent a great deal of time in front of the television - and music was everywhere.  It’s amazing isn’t it?  Noise baby-sat the kids.  No wonder text messaging can be in code or reduced to a couple of words - that is how many speak:  ”Dude!” “Whatever!”  “Shut-up!”  Inarticulate, one or two word sentences.

Got religion?

A week ago the world watched several thousand youth at World Youth Day, where once again noise seemed to be an essential ingredient.  Not a few people thus conclude all the youth of the world are becoming religious.  It is true, WYD is a very encouraging sign of young people’s openness to religion, but the fact is many others have no interest in it at all, and if they do, it is often occult based (Harry Potter generation), or else they are just media junkies.

Silence and solitude would kill them.

It seems to me everything in contemporary culture militates against all that is authentically spiritual, due in part to the noise factor.  I wonder if people are really afraid of silence and just being?  Even New Age spirituality, though emphasizing a certain type of silence, frequently calls for one to voice affirming mantras while the practitioner works to empty his consciousness - therefore avoiding anything associated with authentic self-knowledge.  Thus - even if the Holy Spirit was trying to get in, he might be rejected as a distracting thought.

Mary Hartman really meant to say - “I can’t think now…”

Something is off here.  I wonder if there isn’t an inability to think and meditate, to actually reflect on all of the information that bombards us today.  Critical thinking is often mistaken for dissent and criticism of what someone either doesn’t understand or of what contradicts an individuals preferences.  We seem to be becoming a society totally other-directed by media and technology, while any introspection is drowned out by the noise of popular cultures communication toys.

No wonder there is so little faith on earth.  When the Son of God returns, will there be any left at all?  The readings from todays Mass may speak to this as well:

“Two evils have my people done:  they have forsaken me, the source of living waters;  They have dug for themselves cisterns, broken cisterns, that hold no water.” - Jeremiah 2: 12-13

And:

“They look but do not see, and hear but do not listen or understand…” - Matthew 13: 10-17

Secular press calls the Holy Father the biggest homophobe on the planet…

And yet uber-Catholics post photos like this inviting irreverent and sophomoric comments and captions.  How very, very sad.  Sad, sad, sad - to see unemployed people wasting their vocation and academic achievements on such nonsensical theatrics. 

Where I think it all started - a layman’s perspective.

Recently Archbishop Ranjith, secretary of  the Congregation of  Divine Worship at the Vatican,  has been in the news asking that the now common practice of receiving Holy Communion in the hand be reviewed.  The practice “evolved” after the reform of the liturgy took place with the imposition of the Mass of Paul VI - otherwise known as the Novus Ordo.  As we know well, the reformed liturgy has been a source of contention with traditionalists ever since.

After I returned to the Church in 1972, I attended two churches which remained intact from pre-Conciliar days - in other words, the altars were never turned around.  Yes, one church was St. Agnes in St. Paul, but the other church I frequented daily happened to be Assumption in downtown St. Paul.  The “new” Mass was celebrated in both churches, and as far as I could tell at the time, with little distinction in form from the TLM.

And I don’t think it is just a problem of language.

Of course the vernacular was used, which I immediately appreciated, since I could hear and understand what was being said without using a book.  I liked it for the simple reason - being a new convert, in my first fervor - I had the grace of recollection and could “contemplatively” follow the prayers of the Mass along with the priest.  (I know TLM people will want to correct me on this - but it is true.  Also, some priests who favor the TLM are now talking about inserting the vernacular in the Extraordinary rite - it will happen.)

At both churches, Holy Communion was distributed kneeling at the altar rail, on the tongue, by the priest, just as I had been taught in my youth.  Since I wasn’t a liturgist, I experienced the Mass as being the same as the one as before the Council, except of course, it was in English - which as I said, I appreciated and liked.  I still do.

Turning the tables.

My point is this - and I’m convinced of it.  The disrespect for the Eucharist, and subsequent lack of faith in the real presence, began when the altar of sacrifice was turned around to face the congregation, or as in many newer churches, placed in the middle of the assembly.  Yet it isn’t limited to that - I think it involves a key change of focus in the “turn-around” process  of the Mass as well.

In other words, the “new” emphasis in the Mass, or Eucharistic Celebration, centered around the idea that what was happening was more a banquet, a celebration - that everyone present must partake in.  Much  like an ancient  ”love-fest” - and the partaking meant the apparently mandatory reception of the “bread and the wine”.  I also think this “turn-around” was responsible for the increased participation by the laity in sacredotal duties during the celebration of the Eucharist.

The priest is a “celebrant” and lay-servers are “ministers”.  (Now that’s a language problem.) 

As the reform took root, lay people, most often more women than men, began taking their places in the sanctuary alongside the priest.  Transporting the Eucharist from the tabernacle to the table, and then handing it out to the dinner guests who stood around or in line; the “participants” in turn took the ”wafer”  from the “minister”.  Eventually, as more and more  license was taken, the focus seemed to be placed entirely upon the people; “Grams and gramps have been married 50 years - round of applause!” or, “A round of applause for the music ministry!  Aren’t they great?”  Hence, the centrality of the Eucharist, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass,  diminished and became obscured.

So there you have it - “They” screwed up when they turned the altars around and permitted lay people to have free reign in the sanctuary.  It is not so much about the vernacular, or even communion in the hand - it is about the desacralization of the sanctuary and the eroding effect it had on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.  Anyway - that is my take on it.   

(Maybe my next post should be, “Liturgists with academic degrees, but absolutely no taste.”  LOL!  They mean well.)

[Top photo:  Just a comment.  For over 20 years JPII sat through some very weird liturgies and never really said anything publicly against them.  No offense, but I wonder what he was thinking?] 

But first, connecting the dots about linkies…

I’m not linking to anyone in this post, but surfing around the blogosphere, I have come to realize why some people link to the people they do.  Just because one has a blog does not mean people will link to you.  There is a status quo one must live up to in order to get the linkies thing going on.  (I’m always the last to learn these things.)

Well, first of all, people have to read your blog and like it for them to want to link to it.  (Which is why I have so few readers by the way.)  Having said that, if someone has a literary blog, or an intellectual blog, they may read you, but you are not qualified enough to be on their blogroll.  Nothing wrong with that.

Now I’ve commented in the past few weeks how certain cafeteria blogs seem to be trying to appeal to more sophisticated intellectual/news blogs while being somewhat dismissive of their original “lunatic fringe” fan base.  It all gets so complicated.

Blog hostilities.

Now I find blog competition rather interesting, especially as it involves the elitism of several quality blogs.  It is all rather humbling.  Many bloggers, from whatever school of thought they hail from, tend to be more or less elitists.  I’ve noted liberal and conservative Catholics alike refer to their inferiors and those who disagree with them as ‘wackos”.  (They also will refer to their commenter’s with the same condescending tone.)  I actually like that in some respects  - they sort of cancel one another out that way, and it helps me maintain a proper introspection.

Recently, a Catholic blog that is considered to be rather liberal, let’s call it “Vox Nova” (I rather like the blog BTW) has entertained me with the lively comments their posts generate concerning the “wackos” on the Internet.  Actually, this is where I learned that what I write just doesn’t count for the many elitists out there.  (There is one blog in Asia…)  And no, I am not offended, and I keep going back to these blogs, mainly because I enjoy other writer’s point of view - and as Liza Minelli said, “I think that’s the greatest gift one can have!”  (LOL!  Again!)

Finally, that  “wingnut loon” and his crazy followers.

No - a commenter on that “liberal Catholic” blog was not using that term for me - although many others might - but rather for Fr. Zuhlsdorf.  In fact, another commenter added, “Of course, the online cult of Fr. Z. is going to be upset that their oracle has been denounced. Seriously, he seems to be the major spirit behind the radical Catholics on the net, making them feel like they are in the norm when the reverse is the actual case. “Save the liturgy, save the world” craziness says it all — the liturgy doesn’t need to be saved.”  (I don’t want to link to the article because they probably already think I’m a wingnut too.  LOL!)

I especially like the last comment.  “The online cult of Fr. Z.”  Aside from demeaning his vast readership, it also demonstrates my point:  There are various factions and cliques in the blogosphere; little people and big people, has beens and haven’t beens, employed and unemployed, intellectual and banal, spiritual and gnostic, trad and lib, and so on and so on.  Some get their breaks with other media, other’s troll around the net, hoping to get their own “cult”…  It is pretty much about power and influence, although it is much more about look at me, listen to me, support me.  Me.

Cat Fight Update! (4:20 PM)

Oh crap!  It is just too funny to miss, so I’ll link  - go to Vox Nova and read for your self.

Gettin’ your groove on and makin’ yo “Va-jay-jay” smile with Oprah…

I’d be willing to bet Oprah’s Jesus laughs a lot, like the picture above, and he is rich too.  Anyone who watches Oprah, a woman I find likable BTW, knows she is big into New Age religious concepts, freedom of choice for women - from self-cultivation to killing their unborn children - just don’t mutilate the “Va-jay-jay” by female circumcision.  Spirituality, philosophy, life,  is all about fulfilling the self with Oprah.  That is not to deny she does much good with her charities and kindnesses to strangers, not to mention the political career of elitist presidential candidate, Barack Obama.   

The point is, Oprah does a lot of good, she also promotes some crazy New Age religious ideas, along with her women’s sexuality courses her shows sometimes become.  I’ve come across a couple of blogs that pretty much rip Oprah to shreds because of her New Age spirituality, as well as her continual self-promotion through her magazine, and the financial power she wields.  One blogspot suggested she could be the anti-Christ.  (Which is what I think made Jesus laugh in the picture above.)

False doctrine in your own neighborhood.

Bigger news is that she is corrupting America with her new series based upon “A Course In Miracles” - the popular pop-psyche/New Age/cult spirituality thing that has been around for years.  (I remember reading that a Trappist monk I knew was using Marianne Williamson’s books and loved the spirituality he found there - that and Centering Prayer turned me off to Trappists ever since.)

Anyway - I’ve gotten emails about this, bloggers  and Christian websites have written about it, that Oprah is doing this ant-Christian spirituality series on her radio show.  A friend contacted Snopes to see what they knew about it.  They responded that essentially Oprah’s promotion of the “Course” is really a personal thing on her part and that the ACIM program has been a best seller for a long time; some people like it, some don’t, -  although people are free to not listen to the program.

I think Christians, especially Catholics, have more important things to worry about than a television personality’s accommodation of New Age Christianity.  Catholics ought to be far more alarmed by dissident parishes teaching erroneous doctrine,  invalid baptisms, the secularization of Catholic education, and - oh boy - bishops and priests and women religious who teach the same crap as Oprah.  How stupid are we, anyway?

To read the Snopes piece, go here.

When dad does tricks. 

I came across an interesting article about a woman who wrote a book describing her experiences growing up with a homosexual father.  We often hear stories from parents of homosexual children, and now it seems children of homosexuals are coming out to tell their side of the story.  The author of  Out From Under, Dawn Stephanowizc is quoted here:

“Children are impacted long-term in homosexual environments – not just while they’re growing up, but throughout their adulthood,” said the author. “Children [of homosexuals] who have been in touch with me, even into their fifties and sixties, still describe certain difficulties that they are facing long-term.” - Americans For Truth 

One should think legislators and society would take a more cautious approach to same sex marriage and adoption before giving blanket approval - especially after listening to the kids. 

Wearing down Catholic resistance to the “G” agenda.

I have given up blogging about “G” issues for Lent, so this post is not really about that.  It is about psychology - kind of, sort of.

Vox Nova has a post, The APA and “H” that includes an excerpt of a review by Sally Satel wherein there is an “interesting tidbit about the APA’s decision to eliminate homosexuality from its official list of mental disorders.”  I believe the reversal of diagnosis occurred sometime in the early 1970’s.  Millions of “G” people were no longer nuts.  Perverts no more!  Since then, many people in medicine and psychiatry felt the psychiatric industry had been coerced into taking homosexuality off the list of mental disorders by “G”  activists.  Hence the author of the entry posed the following question:

The APA changes its position on homosexuality after protest and harassment and people lose faith in the authority of its pronouncements? Go figure. It’s worth noting, though, that the conduct members of the APA were subjected to by those gay activists is just an extreme example of the social pressures scientists, academics, and other professionals are subjected to generally to conform their conclusions to the opinions of their social group. A researcher whose work tends towards some politically unpalatable conclusions is not likely to have people picketing his house, but he is likely to face a subtle ostracism from his friends and colleagues. - APA and “H”

I linked to the post and you can read it for yourself - the comments especially are rather interesting.  In fact, my main interest in the Vox Nova  piece centered upon the many comments it received.  I was impressed with how (some)  of the comments by defender of the Faith-style  Catholics,  paralleled similar positions taken by (some)  ”G” activists on their blogs when defending the “H” lifestyle.  The following two comments may help demonstrate my point.

“The misconceptions of many people”

 Gerald Augustinus Says:
February 18, 2008 at 1:00 am

Psychologists follow the same “manual” as psychiatrists. My wife’s a doctor of clinical psychology (which is why she can bear with me, coincidentally) and doesn’t think it’s an illness either, nor does she think that the orientation can be “cured”. She’s counseled HIV patients in the past, many of whom Catholic, unfortunately many a gay person took some serious damage from the way they were treated by (some) Catholics and resent the Church now. It seems nigh impossible to pull off the “hate the sin, love the sinner” act. In particular when people use the term “Sodomite”. (On this note - just how on earth was Lot any better than the men clamoring for the angels ? Hospitality > having virgin daughters gang-raped. Sweet…)

Common ground.

 Gerald Augustinus Says:
February 18, 2008 at 3:01 am

It is hard to tell the symptom from the cause in this matter. Certainly, it doesn’t help with psychosexual development to be widely stigmatized, in particular in the past. Regardless of what one thinks of Church rule on this subject, it must be horribly difficult to identify one’s desire for companionship, love, and, yes, sex with being ‘objectively disordered’. Suppression and sublimation certainly results in a secretive culture. The more open someone is, the less likely they are to engage in the more appalling elements of male gay culture. It’s the ‘closeted’ ones that tend to get caught in restrooms, park, and so forth. The sex abuse scandal in the Church largely happened because of sexually immature homosexuals who entered the priesthood as a ‘beard’ or in the hope to overcome their inclination. Such immaturity then resulted in abusing their emotional ‘equals’, teenage boys.

One could go on forever about the misconceptions of many people - like to claim that homosexuals ‘define’ themselves by their sexuality. For one, that which separates one from the majority sticks out like a sore thumb and by virtue of that becomes defining from both sides. In addition, to reduce homosexuality to a collection of sex acts is just as absurd as if one did that for heterosexuals.

Of course, due to the ‘deviant’ nature (de-viare, off the path) of homosexuality, there are problems caused by the fact that man and woman are made for each other (and even that isn’t all fun and games), and man and man, woman and woman, are not. Hyper-sexuality in the former, and hypo-sexuality in the latter, are quite common.

Lastly, while a gay person, in particular a man, is more likely to be more promiscuous, lead a more dangerous lifestyle (meth, in particular) etc, it ain’t necessarily so - there are many homosexuals who are quite ‘boring’ and ‘normal’.

I have a friend in Courage, I am not sure that ‘re-programming’ is part of that ?

P.S. “Sodomite” is as inappropriate a term as “onany”. The question in the story was the respect for guests, a big thing in the culture. That the women wouldn’t come clamor is self-explanatory. Neither seems ‘Lot’ to have deemed his fellow ‘Sodomites’ to be homosexual, but rather bi-, since he offered them his virgin daughters instead…(who later would go on to jump their drunken fathers and both managed to get pregnant, conveniently giving birth to ‘Ammon’ and ‘Moab’, thus paving the way for future genocide of the respective -ites.

The Catholic Church must conform! 

Contrast those comments with Michael Bayly’s  post (indeed, his website) regarding the APA’s decision, which also figures in well with his campaign for the Roman Catholic Church to discard Her own teaching on the subject:

Dr. Gonsiorek then proceeded to provide some insightful background information on the origins of NARTH – origins inseparable from the wider cultural debate on homosexuality and, specifically, the American Psychiatric Association’s 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from its official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders (followed two years later by the passage of a similar resolution of the American Psychological Association).

This change in the diagnosis of homosexuality was the result of the wealth of research data gathered since the early 1950s that showed no difference between homosexual and heterosexual populations in terms of “adjustment.”

In time, the psychoanalytical establishment also changed in its understanding of homosexuality; it now has the same sets of policies and principles about sexual orientation as the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association. Yet there were “old guard” psychoanalysts who were disgruntled about being displaced and seeing their organization change its views on homosexuality. This disaffected group of psychoanalysts formed an alliance with conservatively- and religiously-oriented psychotherapists. It was from this alliance that NARTH was established. - Debunking NARTH

How queer is that?  Seems like that agenda thing may be working out after all.

Links:

http://www.powells.com/review/2008_02_14.html

Objectifying men in Holy Orders.

Catholic news is often full of stories about liberal nuns who want greater equality in a male dominated Church, along with reports of their counterparts who either lobby for female ordination or go ahead and have themselves ordained. 

Then there are the periodic reports of the occasional scandal involving a priest leaving orders to marry a parish worker or some Camille he may be counselling.  Media, including Catholic bloggers love to exploit these stories.  Such stories also provide an excellent opportunity for uber-Catholics to proclaim their orthodoxy and fidelity to everything traditional, while condemning the heretics.  It’s something to blog about.

However, I find it curious that women, like gay men, seem to have an inordinate attraction not only to the priesthood, but to priests themselves.  I’ve heard some very traditional women say they think the priest is sexy in his cassock - even if he may have ho-hum looks.

Of course, Donatella Versaci has been rather vocal about her attraction to Monsignor Ganswein, the Pope’s secretary; last year she based a portion of  her men’s collection on clerical wear because of him.  The Monsignor also seems to be popular with female bloggers - Catholic and non-Catholic, and as one would expect, gay men seem to have the hots for him as well.  The poor Father is just too sexy for his cassock.

Respecting boundaries. 

Fatal attractions for priests and religious are nothing new, the movie, “The Devils” based upon the book by Aldous Huxley, ”The Devils of Loudon”, contains several scenes of Vanessa Redgrave’s character lusting after the local parish priest.  She was especially turned on by her fantasy of him naked beneath a lacy alb.    I don’t really know what it is that women find so attractive about priests and seminarians - and although I have a few ideas, I won’t go there.  (Photo: Oliver Reed from “The Devils”, Ken Russell, 1971.  Shown here is his scene as a fantasy of Christ for the prioress [Redgrave] who lusted after him.)

Even the most devout and sincere woman can mistake attraction for  devotion and dedication to her faith or position in the parish, although in many instances, she is most likely in denial.  I expect that must be the case when it leads to a priest leaving ministry for the woman he either worked with or counseled.  There are all sorts of situations which can befall a priest, and although it takes two in cases involving romance, the woman may indeed have greater responsibility in the affair.  Why?  If, as studies suggest, women are more intuitive than men, they ought to be more sensitive to the onset of infatuation and lust.  Men, ordained or not, often just don’t see it until it  happens. 

In such cases women would do well to recall the old saying; “Where there’s smoke there’s fire.”  Although before it gets that far, they ought to keep in mind the  other saying;  ”Where there’s fantasy there’s desire”.

It may be better to pray for priests, rather than to foster crushes on them.

Links:

Priests and Emotional Love, by Rev. Thomas G. Morrow - A very good article on the subject.

 [Top photo:  Monsignor Ganswein with another prelate.]