Twiki speaks

What’s the difference between a terrorist and a liturgist?
You can negotiate with a liturgist...

Considering the range of liturgy there is for the Mass, it’s amazing how rubbish so many parish Masses are.
OK, I’m a bit spoilt. I go on a pilgrimage called Student Cross and, here, the liturgy - for the most part - is amazing.

This is what a church should be like. Services are by the people and for the people. The lay community are allowed to use their talents and their ideas to add variety, inspire, question and provoke people’s faith, as well as coming up with different ways to praise God.
The priest still has a very important role to play - without him Mass could not be said.
But the liturgy does not begin and end with the priest. He adds to it with his own knowledge and experience but in a way that it is part of the shared input from the whole community - and in that way, making Mass far more valid and worthwhile than other times.

Sadly, too many parish Masses start and end with the priest. There is a growing clericism in the church, with the lay community being moved back to the role of sheep.
Obviously, this is wrong. The Church was created by God, for the people and of the people.
Undoubtedly, priests have a vital role to play, through their dedication to God, as well as their knowledge and learning.
But the current promotion of the clergy is coming at the expense of the lay community.

It’s no longer the case that the lay community can’t participate because they are illiterate, as was the case for hundreds of years, or that they have no knowledge of Latin - as was the case less than 50 years ago.

The congregation now have undoubted skills, ideas and thoughts that are extremely worthwhile within the context of the parish - and the Mass.

But still their role in Mass is too often confined to the collection, reading and communion - and the Vatican is even trying to take that away.

The lay community is often its worst enemy when it comes to change - the priest often has to twist arms when it comes to volunteering.

To me, there needs to be a change in attitude, from one of passive participation to active involvement. I just don’t get anything out of Mass when I’m just sitting there, mouthing responses and going through the motions.

The lay community should not just be allowed, they should be encouraged to develop the liturgy of the Mass, what the theme of the Mass should be and how it should be interpreted, writing the prayers of the Mass - not just bidding prayers - but offertory prayers, prayer after communion etc.

Music should be a fundamental part of the Mass - more of that in another rant, while the ministry of reading and Eucharist should be continued and promoted further.

We shouldn’t have to depend on what Rome and the Bishops have set out the Mass to be like. Yes, the Mass needs to be liturgically correct but there is no reason why it cannot be opened up to allow more interpretation and more to be done by the lay community, while ensuring that new people to the parish don’t feel left out when going to Mass.

There is a wealth of talent available in the congregation. It’s not a sin for them to be involved in the celebration of the Mass. It’s more of a sin that they are denied that chance by a cabal of cardinals in the Vatican scared of relinquishing power they shouldn’t have in the first place.

So I was at Mass when the parish notices were being read.
One of them was that Jerry Springer the Opera was coming to the area and that we should write to the theatre owner to persuade him not to put it on because it was a blaspehmous piece of work.

My initial reaction was one of annoyance. Almost undoubtedly, the priest hadn't watched it, so how did he know it was blasphemous.

I have real issues with people quick to judge without knowing the full facts. I found it most amusing when Brasseye was broadcast, satirising the hype of the media's portrayal of paedophilia. Immediately came the bandwagon politicians denouncing the programme before admitting that they hadn't seen the programme and were therefore exactly the kind of people Brasseye had portrayed.

When the Passion of the Christ was released I was initially against it. I'd heard it was anti-Semitic and I'm not a fan of Mel Gibson and his pre-Vatican II stance.
However, I realised I couldn't criticise it without having seen it or I would be as bad as the people that annoy me and I would be a hypocrite.

So I went to see it and it was actually very good and gave me a different outlook to Christ's suffering for us.

Back to Jerry Springer though. I have watched it, mainly on the back on authoritarian Christians wanting it banned. To be honest, not a fan of opera and there are some moments of discomfort if you are a committed Christian. However, that's probably exactly what writer Stuart Lee intended.

I did think, though, should I protest against it. Did I find it offensive? Should we be like other religions in protesting at any slights of hallowed people.

My answer is No. I don't think we will be turned away from Jesus because he is portrayed as wearing a nappy.
We've been around for 2,000 years and we should be bigger than that by now.
Instead of looking to ban, we should be looking to teach and explain, just as the Passion of the Christ was used to explore the Christian faith.

I do have a problem with the people that campaign against Jerry Springer the Opera. Where were they when the talk show was on?
To me, the Jerry Springer show was immoral, sinful and wrong. It was like a Victorian peep show where we looked in on other people's lives getting fucked up and we enjoyed it.
We shouldn't be prying into people's lives like that, taking enjoyment from their misery and sadness and yet that is what happened.
Where were the protesters then?

Sometimes, we have a warped view of what is right and wrong. Maybe we should try and remember that before we take to our soapbox and preach.

And, yes, I'm painfully aware of the irony of that last sentence.

I've been having fun recently after moving house.

I say fun, what I mean is stress-inducing, aneurysm-popping hell that is trying to sort stuff out with companies who couldn't spell customer service, let alone practise it.

My main annoyance is with my car insurers who, to protect their identity, I will call Lirect Dine.
I've already been peed off with them after they charged me more than £100 for moving from a dodgy estate in Oxford to a quiet cul-de-sac in High Wycombe where there was zero chance of getting my car keyed or broken into, as was attempted in Oxford.
So when I moved to Bury, I was expecting my postcode not to be as expensive as the £100+ hike, only to find out when I rang that my premium wasn't going to change.
That is until I got the form back, where it said that, although I had moved, my car was going to be stationed at my previous address.
???
Just what kind of idiot would think that, yes he's moved but he might leave his car behind?

So another phone call to tell them that I was controversially taking my car with me, only for them to inform me that to do that would cost an extra £60.
I couldn't believe it either.
It then got worse when I complained about the £160+ rise and it making no sense, only to be told that my premium hadn't gone up by more than £100 when I last moved. Either that's a downright lie or the system records crap data.
Either way, it doesn't exactly lend yourself to having confidence in the company. Anyway, I've changed my car insurers now. After six years of my loyalty to them, I've got a deal that's more than £600 less than what they were offering. Obviously, I was a valued customer.

Next on my list. Estate Agents. Now the ones I used were OK I suppose but why, after it taking a week to go through credit checks, do they insist on being paid the first month's rent and deposit by cash or banker's draft? Isn't the whole point of a credit check to prove I am both able and willing to pay them. And if not, why the hell do we have them?

Then there's NatWest who, at the beginning of the year, kept ringing me to arrange a financial review.
To be honest I didn't really want a review as it would go something like this:
- How are your finances?
- Fine.
- Do you want any of our services?
- No.

Anyway, they kept pestering me so I said I would have one over the phone. They arranged a time to ring, and then nothing.
A week later, someone rang saying I needed a review. I said I'd agreed but no-one rang. They apologised and said someone would get in touch about arranging a review.
No-one rang.
Then they rang again saying I needed a financial review. I pointed out the previous calls. They apologised profusely and arranged a time for me to have a review over the phone.
Have a guess what failed to happen.
At least they have stopped ringing me. Maybe they heard my telepathic thoughts that the next time this happened, I was going to close my account with them. Who can say?

And finally (for now), good old BT. I phoned them more than two weeks ago and the woman was pretty helpful. The phone call took quite a long time but it was free and I knew exactly what I was getting.

Or should be getting.

For, as yet, I still don't have my landline. I do have a landline belonging to the previous tenant who had a contract with another company. That works fine but BT haven't got round to changing it round for me. They were meant to sort it on Friday, two weeks after I first phoned (earliest time the engineer could come round), but he failed to show. I did get an apology but, this is three weeks later now. All someone needs to do is pretty much flick a button at the exchange and it's sorted.

How can it take so long? Answers on a postcard (and not by phone coz it's not sorted)

I've been traveling on the train quite a bit recently - mainly because I've racked up so many points on my licence that I try and avoid traveling by car.

To be honest, going by train is pretty good. I've been stuck in jams so many times over the years, which makes you very cross - and very hot in the summer.
Driving is also very boring. You have to concentrate and all there is to do is listen to tapes/ cds or the radio. And you could have the music collection of a radio station and you'd still be bored after a while.

Train journeys can also be boring but at least you can wander around, read a book, sort out stuff, eat and drink. You aren't trying to work out when it's best to travel as well because you might get caught up in rush hour round Nottingham or there's roadworks on the M6.

Train travel should be the way forward. So why don't I do it more often? The answer, of course, is cost and also reliability. And the fact that the other passengers can be a tad annoying at times. And it can take longer getting from door to door. But mainly cost.

I got a cheap deal the other day of £20 to go to Hull and back from Manchester. That to me is a good price. So why does it cost £55 to get a return to Newcastle? I don't know whether it's GNER or Virgin to blame but I'm going for both of them.

What really pisses me off is he fact that it's so tricky to park near stations. So many more people would use the trains if they could getoot the stations in the first place. But, try and park there and it costs a bomb. I used to live near the Underground, which was great for me to get into London. But there was nowhere for anywhere to park if they lived further away.

Newcastle has a great Metro system. But now they're charging people to park. Why? Even an idiot would realise charging people to park stops commuters from using the metro and getting into their cars.

In Radcliffe, there is free car park for the Metrolink. Each day, it is packed, as are the trams which are quick, efficient, reliable and not dependent on traffic.Expensive though) And that's the end of my story of how free car parks near stations and reliable transport makes sure that public transport is well used.

And another thing...

This year is going to be probably the worst in terms of the coverage of the bloody thing.

It's bad enough watching England play in the pub when you've got crowds of people getting in the way of the screen and spouting the most bollocks possible. Any bad pass and the player is deemed to be rubbish.
There's also the cry of "Why didn't he pick so and so?" "Because he's crap" is the usual answer.

My big problem, however, stems from the coverage by BBC and ITV. It used to be automatic that you'd watch BBC. They had the best commentators, best analysts and also Des Lynam.
But now...
Motty is years and years past his sell by date. For some reason, BBC think he's an institution and everyone loves him. We don't. Give us a decent commentator. At least Graeme Le Saux and Peter Schmeichel went off in huffs but Garth Crooks? Do me a favour. He's terrible and the worst thing about that is he's improved from being execrable.

Then of course we have Ian 'I love England but never did anything for them when I was a player' Wright. The man's an idiot. He adds nothing to the analysis except for making a prat of himself every time he opens his mouth. BBC claim he's the man on the street-type figure. I get enough of them when I'm watching the game in the pub. And they annoy me too.

What the BBC should be doing is providing analysis of why the game has gone like it has and what the teams need to do to improve. Instead, we get Motty complaining about the offside law (It isn't that difficult, John. Just try keeping up with the game and learn what's going on - that is your job after all), Wrighty spouting bollocks and Garth rambling on and on until he comes to a question.

At the last World Cup, ITV actually had the better panel, though they still suffer from really bad adverts and whoever is sponsoring their coverage having the most annoying ads by week two.
They at least had people who knew what was going on and, in Gary Neville, someone who knew the England boys and could report on how they would approach the game etc.
But they seem to have got up their own arses as well. Andy Townsend and Ally McCoist are pretty good individually. Not as a team so stop putting them together. I like Clyde Tyldesley as a commentator but David Pleat? Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhh.

Of course the other problem will be the phrase ' press the red button for...' I don't have a red button. Sod off and give me good stuff on proper tv. And stop asking for people's emails. They really add sod all to the broadcast.

And reasons for not listening to matches on Radio Five? Two words. Alan (I can't help being opinionated)Green. Yes you can. All the other commentators can do it and I bet you could as well.

The World cup should be a great tournament. But all the peripheral things just turn me off.