On the Liturgical Press, Pray Tell Blog is the link below to a thirty minute conversation with two faculty members of the Yale Institute of Sacred Music by Teresa Berger, a contributor to Pray Tell Blog who is also a faculty member there.
The Coronation of King Charles III will take place in Westminster Abbey on Saturday, May 6, an event that will be watched by millions around the globe. In this video interview, Professor Teresa Berger speaks with two British faculty members at the Yale Institute of Sacred Music (ISM)—Professors James O’Donnell and Bryan Spinks—who share their unique insights about ancient and contemporary musical and liturgical aspects of this sacred ritual.
James O’Donnell, professor in the Practice of Organ and Sacred Music at the ISM and Yale School of Music, was the organist and director of Music at Westminster Abbey for the past twenty-three years before he joined Yale in January of this year. He brings a unique perspective to the conversation about the coronation, having led a vast range of services at The Abbey for over two decades, from daily worship to state occasions such as the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge in 2011, and the service of thanksgiving for the life of Prince Philip in 2021. Most recently, he oversaw the music for the state funeral of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. In January 2023, O’Donnell was made a Lieutenant of the Royal Victorian Order by King Charles III in the New Year’s Honors list.
Bryan Spinks is the Bishop F. Percy Goddard Professor Emeritus of Liturgical Studies and Pastoral Theology at the ISM and Yale Divinity School. Professor Spinks is a specialist in a vast array of liturgical topics, including English Reformation worship traditions, eucharistic prayer and theology, Christology, the liturgy of the Eastern churches, marriage rituals, and contemporary worship. As former president of both the Society for Oriental Liturgy and the Church Service Society of the Church of Scotland, as well as consultant to the Church of England Liturgical Commission, he brings deep insights into many aspects of the coronation ceremony.
My Comments
According to Spinks, the liturgy expert, the British coronations are the last remaining examples of an ancient and widely used liturgical rite. These rites were based upon the consecration of a bishop as the liturgical model. Anointing is the key central element; the investiture of the bishop with the symbols of his office, including the crown (miter) were elaborations, as is the enthronement of the bishop. While we usually do not see the miter as a crown, Eastern bishops do wear crowns.
The British coronation rites were very similar to the Frankish coronation rites which were in Latin. The use of English language has made the English rites very distinctive. This has allowed an accumulation of beautiful liturgical music across the centuries.
Zadok the Priest is a British anthem that was composed by Handel for the coronation of King George II in 1727. Zadok the Priest is one of Handel's coronation anthems. One of Handel's best known works, Zadok the Priest has been sung prior to the anointing of the sovereign at the coronation of every British monarch since its composition and has become recognized as a British patriotic anthem.
Everything about the coronation is designed to emphasize the monarch's removal from the common run of humanity. It is meant to inspire fear, awe, and a sense of inferiority on the part of the viewers.
ReplyDeleteA coronation ceremony ought to remind us that a monarchy attracts toadies, sycophants, and manipulators who will benefit from preserving the fiction that the monarch is above common people.
A coronation ceremony should remind Americans that people with vast wealth think of themselves as monarchs de facto. They control laws, armies, judges, land use, and commerce. They are the new tyrants.
For those who need a refresher: https://declaration.fas.harvard.edu/resources/text
Anointing was used in the OT to separate priests, kings, and prophets from the common people.
DeleteWe are reminded in today’s second reading that we as a Christian people are a royal priesthood. Our anointing with oil should symbolize that we are all priests, kings, and prophets. Christianity does have a basis for both civil and ecclesial equality.
The many saints who exercised their baptismal anointing for the reform of both civil and ecclesial society often became limited models because they were mostly religious.
There was some attempt in the coronation ceremony to introduce the notion of servant leadership into the kingship.
Greenleaf, however, stated that the most important aspect of servant leadership, is that we should only be willing to follow people whom we have discerned are true servant leaders. Greenleaf was very skeptical that people who are not natural servant leaders could make themselves into servant leaders, but he did suggest they could try by listening to others.
"Greenleaf, however, stated that the most important aspect of servant leadership, is that we should only be willing to follow people whom we have discerned are true servant leaders. "
DeleteBut King Charles has tried to be a servant leader to some extent, has he not? I believe he has embraced causes such as climate change and animal care/rights? His first wife, Diana, did amazing work to get a nearly-universal landmine treaty in place. She just might have been one of the best people of our lifetimes.
The British royals also have a tradition of their men serving in the British military - and as I understand it, not in cushy, ceremonial roles but actually flying planes and helicopters, serving as officers aboard naval vessels and the like. That strikes me as one of the most admirable forms of servant leadership.
I am not much of a royal watcher. I've only watched a handful of episodes of The Crown before losing interest. Perhaps much more can be said on the other side of the ledger by our resident royal-bashers, Jean and Anne :-). But I'm ready to credit Charles with making a good-faith effort to be a servant leader.
One more thought on the British royals and servant leadership: a monarch like Charles may or may not be a servant leader. But it seems to me that this main topic of the ritual aspects of the coronation ceremonies pertains more to the *office* of the monarch than to the *person* of the monarch. England has had its share of tyrants and incompetents on the throne. The office itself outlives individual bad monarchs.
DeleteI have heard the distinction made the that British monarch is the head of state, whereas the British PM is the head of government. We don't make that distinction in the US. I wouldn't wish the US to have a king (I don't see how any American could), but I do see the usefulness of distinguishing between the state and the government.
The debate among citizens of the UK, as I understand it, is not whether the royal family does anything good. The debate is over whether the good that it does a) ought to be at their sole discretion, and b) is worth the money the nation pays to support them.
DeleteAs for serving in the military, it became clear that Andrew and Harry were both more hindrance than help to their units, however much they wanted to serve.
Charles and Diana competed for popularity with dueling charities designed to highlight their social consciences. Some good came of these efforts, but ongoing problems need more dedicated, long-term efforts by knowledgeable people in it for the long haul.
Jim, many countries (France is one) have both a President and a PM. There are a couple of types of PM-President set ups.
Deletehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-presidential_republic
Jim, Charles has been outspoken about the need to address climate change, preserve Great Britain’s architectural heritage. (he’s definitely not a fan of modern boxes with doors and windows, tall or small - traditional architecture in England from London to the small villages is beautiful and well worth preserving and emulating) and organic and humane food production. He established a large organic garden at his personal estate long, long ago. He eats vegan or vegetarian at least twice/ week. As far as that last goes, I did read a couple of comments online about how only “ poshers” can afford organic food and right now a whole lot of Brits can barely afford food at all. I am not a fan of British royalty, just as I’m not a fan of RCC “royalty”, but Charles’ personal interests align with some of mine and I’ve read about his involvement in those three areas. I am not a fan of the English royals predilection for hunting down and destroying magnificent wild animals just for sport. Elizabeth may have been a “servant leader” in some sense, but she was exceedingly well compensated for it. The British sovereign is the wealthiest person in the world. Elizabeth and Charles each had/ have personal fortunes over a billion. All the royals are excessively well compensated, including the awful Andrew and his incredibly rude, spoiled, daughters with an obnoxious sense of entitlement. Guessing that in the next generation William will be king, but many of the extended family could lose their “allowances”.
DeleteI don't know the royal family members and cannot comment on their personalities.
DeleteI don't care if the Brits want to keep on paying them as a kind of circus act that artists like to write special music for or paint pretty pictures of in order to make people think it's more important than it is.
I do object to the way the American media fawn on these individuals and ceremonies without any reference to their origins in "divine right of kings" authoritarianism that we rejected 250 years ago.
The Andrew scandal was huge news. I don’t watch tv news, but the headlines were everywhere on the news feeds. It had to do with his partying with Epstein with underage girls, and then a disastrous interview he gave in British tv about it where he apparently dug his own grave. So bad that the Queen was forced to kick him out of his royal apartment, his offices, and cut him off from all of his ceremonial duties and “ his”:charities. . And she did this even though he was reputed to be her favorite. I watched part of Megan and Harry’s wedding in order to see Michael Curry’s homily ( he is the presiding bishop of the ECUSA and he’s African American). He went full throated African American power preacher. The cameras kept picking up Andrews daughters ( in their 20s) who would nudge each other, grin at each other, stifle laughter etc. Totally disrespectful and obnoxious.
DeleteAnother strong factor in the coronation ceremonies are the oaths which while religious are also part of feudalism.
ReplyDeleteThe King before he was anointed had to swear that he would uphold a Protestant Church of England. After he was anointed the Archbishop of Canterbury then pledged his allegiance to the King.
The oaths of allegiance to the monarch by the aristocracy were paired down to that of the Prince of Wales. However, the royal family and all the aristocracy are pledged to one another, except when they fight over who gets what lands and titles.
Medieval social theory, such as it was, was undergirded possibly by the pagan notion of fate. You could not fight your destiny. In fact, to do so upset a precarious, tribal social order. Stability depended on a leader, his army, and a lot of worker bees to raise food and make tools.
ReplyDeleteAs Christianity took hold, the earthly social order reflected (rather conveniently for kings and their buddies) the hierarchy of Heaven: God/king at the top, the archangels/nobles and knights under him, and then lower classes of angelic beings/workers and slaves. You can see this in medieval art all the time: The king and Jesus are always the biggest figures in a picture.
Monarchs operated on a kind of circular medieval logic: "I wouldn't be king if God didn't want me to be, and because I am king and God has ordained it, everything I do is God's will, therefore everyone owes me blind allegiance or they go against God."
Coronation ceremonies with the holy oil, oaths, and all the accoutrements designed to elevate the king quite literally (tall crown, high throne, dais, canopies) and to draw a line from God on high to his earthly counterpart.
The Declaration of Independence was not the first document to cast a monarch as a mere mortal whose greed and bad judgment had led to poor governance and social chaos. But it is why we do not have a king, why we give lip service to a meritocracy, and why I do not understand why we are fawning over the direct descendants of George III.
I agree with you Jean. I do not understand why so many Americans are glued to their TVs for this. From what I have read, though, Queen Elizabeth and her family truly believed in the Divine Right of Kings and that all the wealth and privilege was their God given due. I didn’t watch any of the coronation stuff. I’m just happy that it wasn’t my tax money paying for it. But one story headline caught my eye and I read it. Apparently a request was made for all British subjects, in Great Britain and anywhere in the world, to voluntarily swear an oath of allegiance to King Charles AND all his entitled descendants forever. This indicates to me that the royals who live on the public dole in England might be finally getting just a bit nervous about how long the people will support their lavish lifestyles.
DeleteApparently a lot of anti-monarchists among the many Brits in my movie club. I don't think the line that a white, German, Christian family of individuals of unexceptional intelligence and talent are somehow a symbol of unity for the Commonwealth really holds up any more. In the last couple of generations the Dutch monarchy has thinned its ranks of extended family, divested itself of crown holdings that it might be called upon to maintain and consolidated its wealth in liquid assets that can be distributed at their discretion. The Queen of Denmark has followed a similar path. I would be really surprised if Charles is not thinking ahead to a day when the monarchy is untenable, and feathering the nest of the Windsor-Mountbattens against that event.
DeleteWell, he’s already a billionaire, without even including the properties and other assets of the crown. But greed and a sense of divinely bestowed entitlement may lead to some additional feathering of their many nests.
DeleteThanks for the link to the Handel Coronation Anthem, Jack. The music for these events always interests me. I haven't watched any footage from the coronation yet, but I plan to. I'm hoping they had another anthem, "I Was Glad When They Said Unto Me" by William Herbert Parry, which I like.
ReplyDeleteI am not one to be glued to the screen to watch these things, but neither do I have an issue with them. I'm not a Brit, but that's their thing, whatever. I pay attention the parts such as the music that I am interested in.
Coincidentally yesterday morning our archdiocese had the ordination of nine permanent deacons. We were not able to attend, but my husband watched the livestream. I think there are a lot of similarities between an ordination liturgy and a coronation. There is the anointing with chrism, and the part where the new deacon or priest places his hands in the archbishop's and pledges obedience to him and his successors. That is similar when the to the Prince of Wales promises his loyalty to the king. Of course the mission is different, royalty is a bit of an anachronism these days. As with the coronation, I was interested in the music of the ordination. I could hear it from where I was since I couldn't go to the basement where it was streamed. There is always the Litany of the Saints, which is moving. And there was a nice version of the 84th Psalm, How Lovely is Your Dwelling Place. There was one piece which we don't hear often, Lauda Sion, from the Vatican Graduale. It is chant but quite lovely.
Mostly we are grateful for these new deacons, who are sorely needed.
I didn't watch the coronation and had no motivation to do so. But I am always a sucker for Handel and am thankful for Jack's link.
DeleteAlthough opposed to monarchy, my criticism is muted given the quality of our presidents recently. I wonder how the american indian and the slaves would have fared had the American Revolution failed. Is Charles dumber or goofier or even more addled than Bush, Trump or Biden? Obama was certainly more amenable than most but "Man of the People", not really. Actually quite royal.
Criticizing what the British do is fine, but we need to fix our political system which is really screwed up.
I am a sucker for Philip Glass, too. This pageantry would have been impressive.
Deletehttps://youtu.be/rSn_UAquOfw
Sorry if I am off-topic. Just trying to illustrate that toadying up to royalty (or, in the U.S, the obscenely wealthy) has for centuries been a boon to artists who wanted to build their reputations and make money. Just sort of a drag that people with overdeveloped purses get to call the tune so that the rest of us hear and see art that disproportionately aggrandizes them.
DeleteOtoh, I suppose royal patronage means you don't climb a tree, shoot yourself in despair, and die an unknown like Van Gogh.
But I wonder if his paintings would have been as wonderful had he felt the pressure to make a king happy.
I think Van Gogh marched to his own drummer, I just can't picture him doing commissioned works for royalty.. On the other hand someone like Holbein specialized in portraits of the famous. Which isn't a bad thing, thanks to him we know what Thomas More, Martin Luther, Erasmus, and others looked like.
DeleteCorrection, Holbein didn't paint Martin Luther. Cranach the Elder did.
DeleteWell, we know what royal/influential patrons wanted Holbein to make them look like, anyway. There is a whole lot of fascinating info out there about the political machinations behind Holbein's images.
DeleteOff topic for Jean. A couple of weeks ago I mentioned that the lectionary often omitted scriptures that describe the roles women played. You seemed doubtful that this occurred. I had remembered reading about this a number of times, but couldn’t provide citations. In a column at NCR today, Christine Schenk mentions it
ReplyDeletePrior to the 2008 Synod on the Word of God in the Life and the Mission of the Church, FutureChurch supporters sent nearly 20,000 paper and electronic postcards to church leaders and synod delegates asking them to invite women biblical experts and restore biblical women deleted from the lectionary. (No women theologians had been included in the 2005 synod on the Eucharist.)
Packets of materials containing lists of women biblical scholars and extensive documentation of the "Amnesia in the Lectionary" about deleted biblical women were also sent to 25 English-speaking bishop delegates.
We were delighted that 25 women were invited to participate in the 2008 synod. Up until that time, it was the most women to ever attend a Catholic synod. Six female experts and 19 female auditors brought a female lens to this historic gathering that universally affirmed Dei Verbum, the Vatican II document on the Bible.
Our packet of lectionary information seeded synodal discussion of women deleted from the readings at Mass. For the first time in history, bishops discussed the need to restore women's stories. Judging from the responses I received from many prelates, most had no idea that biblical women leaders had been sliced out of lectionary texts. They were embarrassed.
Two final synod propositions praised "women in the ministry of the Word" and asked to open study of the lectionary with a view to updating lectionary texts.
I guess they are still studying it though. Not yet correcting the problem.
I think this was the synod that also recommended opening the installed ministries of lector and acolyte to women. Benedict ignored that one, but Francis when he was asked by the Synod of the Amazon to do the same, did open them, along with the newly created catechist ministry to women.
DeleteWhen John XIII was asked how many people worked in the Vatican, he replied "about half of them." So, we have to knock loudly on their doors frequently.
Jack, There are links in the article at NCRonline to more information.
DeleteOld Testament women don't show up often because the OT readings are generally short-sheeted. I don't know what NT women are erased.
ReplyDeleteMy concern isn't so much with women who don't appear in the readings as with the dearth of imagination that clergy have in interpreting scriptural women's thoughts and actions.
Where women saints have been able to write their own ideas (ex Julian of Norwich and Catherine of Siena, whose feasts just passed), the Church is ahead of evangelical and fundamentalist Protestants, who have entirely erased women Christian thinkers.
Women showing up to speak for inclusion of women in the lectionary is a good thing. It wasn't my intention to be dismissive about your point.
Regarding the OT in the lectionary: prior to V2, there were no OT readings; there was an Epistle and a Gospel. (There was a portion of a psalm, called the Gradual. But there really aren't many women in the psalms. The only passage I am thinking of is Psalm 45, which is about a princess from Tyre coming to marry the king - "forget your own family and your father's house.")
DeleteI'm mentioning this because that article Anne quoted referred to women being "deleted" and "restored". Unless there was some concerted effort over the last 60 or so years to remove women's stories which previously had existed in the reformed lectionary, I don't think it's a question of "restoring" something; it is a question of revising to include something for the first time. Or am I missing something?
I think most of the de let that need restoration are NT. I have no idea how often OT women such as Esther are mentioned.
DeleteJust my observation: I think most of the women in the Gospels do appear at some point during the three year lectionary cycle. But my guess would be that the New Testament book with the most women, by far, is the Acts of the Apostles; and by and large, it seems to me they are given a miss by the lectionary. Acts really only appears in the Sunday lectionary each year during one particular season, the Easter Season.
DeleteWell, let’s hope that the Catholic Church is at least marginally better than evangelicals. That would really be scraping bottom.
ReplyDeleteThe average Catholic never hears a word about the writings of people like Julian of Norwich or Catherine of Siena or Theresa of Avila etc.If you mentioned Julian of Norwich they would probably assume that you aware talking about a man. These women are never mentioned in readings or homilies - at least the Marys and Martha show up -occasionally. And few Catholics know much about scripture, church history, or the female saints who didn’t choose to die rather than be raped. What tiny little they know is from homilies.
I would say that *some* Catholics know little about scripture, church history, etc. Don't put everyone in the same basket. Most people know as much as they care to inform themselves about. If you follow the daily readings in the lectionary you are going to get a pretty wide slice of the scriptures. Most of us own Bibles and commentaries if we want to dig deeper. As far as the saints on the calendar they are by no means all martyrs. The doctors of the church, including Teresa of Avila and Catherine of Siena, are most definitely there, not to mention the founders of both men and women's religious orders.
DeleteThe homilies for daily Masses quite often include details or writings from the lives of the saints.
I know that most of the saints weren’t martyrs. Most were priests, male and female missionaries, and nuns who started schools, hospitals, charitable organizations etc. Way more men than women saints though. Relatively recently they have occasionally canonized a lay person who was not a vowed religious or ordained. They prefer (apparent) virgins but have canonized a couple of married couples (who gave up sex at some point). They love the virgin martyrs.
DeleteKatherine, I have not lived as you have, immersed in an intensely active family and close community of Catholics. I was a very active Catholic for decades. I was frequently at weekday mass. I think my experience of the lack of knowledge of average Catholics is more typical than your experience being around mostly self-educated Catholics. They hear only what male priests and deacons choose to talk about. There are a few well known Catholic women saints - pretty much every Catholic knows about Terese the Little Flower. Mary Magadalene, Mary and Martha of Bethany. Maybe St Clare - because of Francis. . Some have heard about Theresa of Avila , and some about Catherine of Siena. In my decades of going to Catholic masses, I can’t think of a time when any priest ever said more than a minute of words about the saint of the day. I have a Bible with significant commentary. But not a separate dedicated commentary. I have several books about both the OT and NT. But except for the parish in- crowd folk ( like you and Jim, and the rectory groupies), I haven’t known very many Catholics at all who ever study a Bible commentary much less own one, or who know who most female saints are ( or many saints at all except for apostles and Francis of Assisi and maybe Ignatius of Loyola etc) or what they did - unless their own parish is named for one. I had never heard of a St Edna before Jim! So I would say some Catholics take steps to educate themselves, but most don’t- they only know what is read to them on Sunday and what the homilist says about the readings.
"I had never heard of a St Edna before Jim!"
DeleteAnne, I am certain this will change your impression of the Catholic church (not): our parish was split off from another parish in town back in the 1960s, during a suburban building boom out this way. A large donor stepped forward to help fund the building of the new church. Apparently, is donation earned him "naming rights": he made his donation contingent on the parish being named for his wife (perhaps it was a late wife), whose name was Edna.
Re: St. Edna; here is a link: https://catholicism.org/saint-edna-695.html
DeleteIt says she was Irish, and succeeded St. Hilda as abbess of Whitby.
Lots in Anne's comments to unpack that maybe could be a new post.
ReplyDeleteOne thought occurs to me: How many people in any faith are engaged with it enough to take time to study it? Me, but I have always been a weirdo who likes to navel-gaze and think too much.
Most people who are religious attend services, say prayers, sing songs, hear info, serve on committees, and nag their kids to get bar mitzvah'd, confirmed, or whatever because that's what you do for familial, social, or cultural reasons.
I don't want to knock those people because they're the ones who often keep local congregations going.
But my theory is that children enjoy church because it is sensory and fires the imagination. Old people enjoy it for the comfort and company. The vast middle years are taken up with making money and worrying about the family, and religion is just wallpaper.
Kids enjoy church? Where?
DeleteEven The Boy liked some aspects of it, the statues, crucifixes, votive candles, looking at the Stations plaques, reading prayers of the people at Mass in Catholic school, living rosary, Christmas Mass, blessing of pets, Easter basket blessing, stuff like that.
DeleteHe hated CCD and the Church Ladies yelling at him, and he dropped out when he was a junior in high school.
I wouldn't say that my kids "enjoyed " church. We didn't take them much until they were four or five, family members would stay with them. Then we moved away from our home town. The parish where we attended had a nursery class during one of the Masses, but the younger one didn't want to be there ( the older boy had already aged out of it). He would rather be with us upstairs, so fine. They never got interested in liturgy until later, but they never really fought with us over going to church, it was just something we did. The older son is quite interested in liturgy as an adult. The younger one stays engaged because his wife and three daughters are pretty actively involved ( I think he is personally invested too but it doesn't hurt to have the girls active).
DeleteWhenever I step into a Barnes and Noble and head to the Religion section, I would say that 3/4 of the books in the section are written by Evangelicals for an Evangelical audience. Some are quite good. A lot are written by "star pastors" who lead big mega-churches. From that observation, I take it that Evangelicals, on the whole, read more religious books than Catholics do. (Possibly starting with the bible!) I suspect the Catholic church could do much more than it does to promote adult study, formation and book-reading. I would guess that, if a pastor held up a book and said, "Read this book - it is life-changing!", and then it was offered for sale in the back of the church after mass, quite a few would be sold.
DeleteJust to add to my previous comment: I think the traditional Catholic culture has been: we let the priests, and perhaps the sisters, do all the book-reading. They made us read books when we were kids in Catholic school. Now that I'm out of school, I'm going to read Tom Clancy or a bodice-ripper.
DeleteEvery Christmas some "anonymous donor" gives a free copy of a book for every family in the parish. Usually they are by Matthew Kelly. One time it was a collection of short essays by Fulton Sheen. I confess that I have never finished one yet. I do read books on spirituality. Just not those books. Truth to tell I find them kind of boring. I suppose I am looking a gift horse in the mouth. Our pastor doesn't push them too hard. The one he held up as life changing was The Imitation of Christ by Thomas a Kempis.. Which I have read, some of it at least. Some of it is timeless. Some of it seems more like it was written for a medieval monastic community. One of the copies we have was given to my husband for high school graduation by his Evangelical pastor. I don't think the pastor read it, at least not part five, which discusses the sacrament of Communion in a pretty definitely Catholic understanding of it.
DeleteKatherine, some organization funds sending free Matthew Kelly books to any parish that asks for them. I read one and also found it boring. Very trite and predictable. I don’t consider it to actually be spiritual reading, but more like pop religion. I read part of Thomas a Kempis a long time ago and found it to be very off- putting. I don’t remember what put me off, but I really didn’t like it. Pretty much the opposite extreme from Matthew Kelly.
DeleteI do read a lot of religious and spiritual writers, mostly contemporary. Jean has me interested ( finally);in getting a ( shirt) lives of the saints. Haven’t gotten around to it yet though.
Fwiw, I wouldn't read a compendium of saints lives. It's more fun (for me) to pick a saint and then read as many versions of his or her life as you can. Including the movie versions.
DeleteIf you want a book which is more of a light-hearted intro to some of the saints, try Saint Watching, by Phyllis McGinley. This is a vintage book, not currently in print, but easily attainable through the second hand market. Entertaining and informative. Has a lot of quirky facts.
DeleteThe thing about Thomas a Kempis' book is that he actually did write it for a medieval monastic community. So some of it isn't applicable to our lives. But some of it is. I guess it's a matter of take what you can use, and leave the rest.
DeleteJean, how do you pick the saints to read about?The saint whose feast day it is at mass?
DeleteKatherine, my only memory ( very fuzzy) of the Thomas a Kempis book was that it was laser focused on suffering and was really depressing.