ALL MY FRIENDS HATE ME

UK, 2021, 93 minutes, Colour.

Tom Stourton, Georgina Campbell, Christopher Fairbank, Dustin Demri-Burns, Joshua McGuire, Antonia Clark, Kiarane Hodgson, Charly Clive, Graham Dickson.

Directed by Andrew Gaynord.

A British production, both serious and comic, featuring a group of young men and women turning 31, gathering for a birthday celebration, remembering their University days. It is a film geared for audiences of the same age as the characters – not particularly interesting for those not yet 30!, Perhaps of interest for those who want to remember what they were like at that age. The screenplay was co-written by the star, Thom Stourton.

The film focuses on Peter, turning 31, working with refugees, some memories of the past but some loss of memories, travelling to George’s house where the celebratory weekend is to be held, losing his way, asking an elderly countryman the way and being baited by him jokingly, find himself in the house, missing the note to say that they are all away.

Then the celebration starts. There is the issue of a former girlfriend, Claire, who, allegedly, so disappointed in his rejection attempted suicide. His very sensitive about her because he is about to make his proposal to his current girlfriend, Sonia. There are his male friends, especially George, with a touch of aristocracy, and Archie, sometimes a bit out of it. Then there is the local, Harry, who continually on antagonises Peter, snoring at night, snooping, asking all kinds of questions, especially about Claire, even taking notes on what Peter says.

Peter becomes more and more frustrated, angry at Harry, telling his friends that he doesn’t remember a whole lot of incidents that they are recalling. He tries some cocaine and is accused of losing it all. Then there is the hunt, with the help of the elderly man he met on the road and had mimicked, his not being a hunter.

Matters get worse and is everybody keeps joking, remembering stories which Peter fails to remember. Sonja also arrives. And, the repeaters continual outbursts against Harry, first identifying him as the brother of the little girl he and his friend had tormented when they were 15. This is not the case. And, a man comes out, impersonating Peter as a kind of sideshow, revealing everything about him, and eliciting from Peter confession about Ian’s friend tormenting the young girl in the past.

It emerges that Harry is someone from the past, a showman. He has been hired for the entertainment. What has emerged is that Peter is self-preoccupied, becoming more and more paranoid, eventually throwing a vase at Harry, injuring him.

At the end, he drives away, more than chastened, Sonia driving, worrying that she would not say yes to his proposal. She then jokes, seeming to turn him down, but finally accepting.

A memory comes up of the group of friends gathering for a funeral in The Big Chill and truth being told.

HIS ONLY SON

US, 2022, 100 minutes, Colour.

Nicholas Mouawad, Sarah Seyed, Daniel da Silva, Luis Fernandez-Gill, Edaan Moskowitz.

Directed by David Helling.

A faith-based feature film, going back to Genesis 22, Abraham and God’s request that he sacrifice Isaac, a story significant for the three Abrahamic faiths. At the end, there is a particular Christian focus with a crucifixion scene, God’s only son, Jesus, dying on the cross.

The introduction tells us that the book of Genesis gives us the full story of Abraham. However, the final credits also indicate that a number of incidents in Genesis have been amplified/fictionalised for dramatic purposes. (The publicity for this film states that this story has never been seen before – although George C Scott and Ava Gardner were Abraham and Sarah in John Huston’s The Bible, 1966, and Richard Harris was Abraham in the television film of that name, 1993, the latter well worth checking.)

In most ways, this is straightforward telling of the story of Abraham, his experience of God asking him to sacrifice his only son, Isaac, the journey to the mountain where the sacrifice was to take place. However, there are many flashbacks during the journey, especially focusing on the memories of Abraham himself, played by Nicolas Mouawad, looking patriarchal. And, the desert and mountain scenery creates an atmosphere, sometimes eerie, vast plains, overpowering mountains, caves.

The flashbacks include, of course, Abraham, Abram, his sense of destiny, and a visual focus on the many stars of the sky and the sands, God’s covenant promise (though the covenant and fire of chapter 15 is not included). The main flashbacks concern Sarah, Abraham’s meeting with her, courtship, their life together, on the move, the fact that she could not have children. In fact, one of the strongest parts of the film is the relationship between Abraham and Sarah, a lot more time given to this relationship than other Genesis stories. In fact, it is Sarah who urges Abraham to relationship with Hagar because God’s promise was not to Sarah but to Abraham. But, she regrets this, turning against Hagar. It is surprising, in this context, that the visit of the strangers who receive hospitality and speak of Sarah’s pregnancy are very briefly and sketchily shown.

Abraham and Isaac do not travel alone. There are two servants accompanying father and son, a great deal of discussion along the way, one of the servants rebellious, the other trying to control him, and quite an amount of dialogue between them as they camp in caves during the journey.

On the way, several dramatic incidents have been inserted, a group of horsemen threatening the travelling party, attacking both Abraham and Isaac. They also have a captured girl and Isaac willing to sacrifice himself for her freedom. And, along the way, they meet a procurer who has a range of young women he wants to make available to the group. So, there is a certain earthiness about this storytelling.

However, there is a certain atmosphere of unearthiness in how God is presented – a glowing figure, white, translucent, human outline. Which, for many audiences, may be too ethereal and unconvincing. Perhaps a sense of God’s presence and the use of voice alone might have been more persuasive.

But, one of the problems with the film is that Isaac is not so will delineated until the very end of the film, audiences not quite identifying with him Abraham somewhat aloof in his fear and grief, Isaac bewildered, but, ultimately the dramatic sequence of the sacrifice, knife poised, and God’s voice of reprieve.

The writer-director served as a Marine in Iraq for some years, reading the Bible, coming home, making some short films and then this his first feature.

There is quite a New Testament focus in the final moments of the film, Abraham’s sacrifice moving into the crucifixion scene, the kneeling Centurion, and after the final credits, on screen five quotations from St Paul.

The film is designed for communities who tend to take biblical narratives literally. With some background, the film may be useful for church groups.

1. The title, the focus, Abraham and Isaac, God and Jesus?
2. Audience familiarity with the Abraham story, other versions, the texts in Genesis?
3. The basic realistic portrayal of the Genesis story, the narrative of the sacrifice, the flashbacks, Abraham and his call, journey, with Sarah, her inability to become pregnant, Hagar the slave girl and the birth of Ishmael, Sarah’s jealousy, the visit of the three guests, very brief, Sarah pregnant, the birth of Isaac? Various stories omitted, the covenant and the fire, Lot and Lot’s wife…?
4. The desert locations, the vast vistas of the plains, close-ups, the mountains, towering, the caves, the destination, the altar and the fire? The musical score?
5. The portrait of Abraham, his age, patriarch, the flashbacks to his call, the voice of God, destiny, the generations to come, courting Sarah, life with her, her urging him to Hagar, her later resentment, her pregnancy, the birth of Isaac, his love for Isaac?
6. Isaac, not so clearly delineated, the only son, relationship with his parents, the journey for the sacrifice, his accompanying the group, the captured girl and offering his life, the violence and his injury? Continuing the journey, talking with his father, the bond between them, the destination, carrying the wood, Abraham telling him the truth, his submission, lying on the altar, reprieve, embracing his father?
7. The character of Sarah, the amount of tension the film gives her, in the past, marriage, the years, supporting Abraham, barren, the promise to Abraham not to her by God, urging him to Hagar, the later resentment and jealousy, her own pregnancy and birth of Isaac?
8. On the journey, the servants, their role, the discussions, different attitudes between the two, the long cave discussion, binding the younger man? The role of the older man?
9. The horsemen, the attack, who they were, the threats to Abraham? With the captured girl, the violence, Abraham injured, the attack on Isaac?
10. The procurer along the way, offering the travelling group the girls? The old injured man along the path?
11. The presentation of God’s presence, the ethereal white figure, the voice of God?
12. The film as an introduction to the Genesis stories, to audiences reading them, of understanding them in their “historical” context, saga-telling in the Hebrew Scriptures, rather than absolute literal interpretation?

PEARL

US, 2022, 103 minutes, Colour.

Mia Goth, David: Corenswet, Tandi Wright, Matthew Sunderland, Emma Jenkins-Purro Alistair Sewell..

Directed by Ti West.

This is the work of cult director, Ti West, best known for horror films on the big screen and, more recently, on television, perhaps the best known, The Innkeepers. Critics admire his work. They particularly praised West’s 2022 slasher-drama, X, a 70s tale of a group of filmmakers working at a Texas farm, echoes of chainsaw massacres, making a sex film of the times. After the deaths, a survivor moved back to the house, confronting the evil old woman in the attic. She was played by Mia Goth who also played one of the filmmakers.

West has had the idea of a prequel – but not in the way that we might have expected. We go back to 1918, more than half a century before X. But, those in the know, recognise the same house, the property, the farm, the river, the alligator…

And Mia Goth is here again, playing Pearl. At first, the house and life on the farm has the touch of nice Norman Rockwell paintings – but, we soon learn the sinister aspects of life, Pearl’s husband, Howard, is away fighting in France. The family has a German background and so is treated suspiciously by the locals. The father sits in his wheelchair, after a stroke, unable to speak, paralysed, needing to be washed and fed. The mother, stern, Germanic, often speaking in German, controls Pearl. So far, so expected but creating an atmosphere.

Pearl, on the other hand, doing all the chores, feeding the animals, loves to dance. When she goes into town to buy her father’s medicine, she sneaks await the local picture show, losing herself, especially in the dancing films (which are shown with a soundtrack here). She encounters the handsome projectionist to invites her back at any time. Because she spent some money at the pictures, her mother then takes her meal away from her as compensation for the lost coins!

Pearl has a good friend, Mitzi, who tells her that the local churches having auditions for a dance troupe to travel around the state. Obviously, conflict! Aggravated by the fact that Pearl returns to the picture show, the projectionist showing her some French pornographic scenes,, Pearl caught up.

While we realise that Pearl is obsessed, and we know that there is going to be some violence, especially since we saw Pearl earlier killing a goose with a pitchfork and feeding it to the alligator, but it is still something of a shock when have Pearl viciously lashes out.

As regards the public, West’s films have a particular demographic, fans of horror films, fans of films with a touch of the gory, but fans of horror films which give more thought to the plot and themes than the average thriller.

Mia Goth does give a persuasive performance, ordinary, put upon, obsessed, violent, wanting sexual compensation, and the director gives her an opportunity to communicate herself and what goes inside her, her feelings, in a seven minute monologue towards the end of the film, Pearl with her friend Mitzi, who has invited her to express her feelings to her absent husband, a variation on two-chair therapy. It is a memorable monologue.

And, during the final credits, there is a long close-up on Pearl’s face, a strange grin, something of a rictus kind of grin, but some tears as well.

And then Pearl must have gone up into the attic to reappear menacingly half a century later.

1. The films of the director, his interest in violence, horror, psychology – and the combination?
2. Audiences responses to X? To the location, to the murders, to the sex film, to the old woman in the attic?
3. The locations, the open spaces, the Homestead, the barn, the fields, the river, the alligator? The contrast with the town, the picture show, the projection room? The church, the audition? The musical score? The music of the times?
4. 1918, the US in World War I, Howard away fighting in France, the German family, the attitude of the locals, vehicles, costumes and decor, the silent films?
5. The connection with X, the woman in the attic, Pearl, Mia Goth and both roles? Pearl and young, acting young, married, the in-laws, Mitzi and friendship, bringing food to the family, the mother refusing charity, leaving the pig to the maggots? The stern household, the father after the stroke, fed, cleaned, the wheelchair? The stern mother, speaking German, discipline, the hard work, the demands on Pearl?
6. Pearl, her response, music, the animals, feeding them, milking the cow, the goose, the pitchfork, feeding it to the alligator? Cleaning her father, the meals, grace, sign of the cross, the mother and her explanations of being stern? Cycling into town, getting the medicine, going to the pictures, her delight in the dancing musical, the encounter with the projectionist, his charm, her return, he showing her the pornography, her reaction, the sexual advance, the sexual encounter, her needs? Her return home?
7. Exasperated with her mother, fighting, the dress catching fire, her mother in the basement, her death? A love for her father, the bath, putting on the suit, smothering him?
8. The projectionist, coming to the house, hearing the sounds, wary, seeing the table set, the parents, Pearl and her sense of rejection, the pitchfork, killing him? Pushing his car into the river, the alligator approaching?
9. The Scarecrow sequence, and the crows, the dance – and the Wizard of Oz?
10. The audition, Mitzi coming, sitting outside the church, the other contestants, Mitzi and her nervousness, contestants coming out weeping, Mitzi giving her place, Pearl going in, the exhilaration of her dance, the presentation like a movie musical, the achievement, the rejection, shock, weeping outside? Going home with Mitzi? Mitzi anxious, not having one?
11. The monologue sequence, Mitzi an invitation, two-chair therapy, Pearl talking to Howard, seven minutes of self revelation?
12. Mitzi, afraid, Pearl thinking she had won the audition, pursuing her, killing her?
13. Pearl, alone, going into the house – and the rictus grin during the final credits, the tear?

JANE

US, 2021, 83 minutes, Colour.

Madelaine Petsch, Melissa Leo, Chloe Bailey, Kerry Medders, Nina Bloomgarden, Ian Owens, Victoria Foyt.

Directed by Sabrina Jaglom.

20 years ago with the very popular comedy, Mean Girls, this gave the title to this kind of film where high school students, especially girls, are harsh towards each other, bullying. And, of course, in the 2020s, there is cyber bullying. This is a brief film, focusing on two girls and their bullying, the consequences, although the consequences are not as moralising as would be expected.

The film has been cowritten and directed by Sabrina Jaglom, daughter of prolific and somewhat avant-garde director, Henry Jaglom. And her mother, Victoria Foyt, appears as the persecuted teacher, Mrs West.

The Jane of the title commits suicide at the opening of the film. This has an effect on her classmates at the private school, led by the principal, a more sympathetic role for Melissa Leo. But, the suicide has a very powerful effect on one of her friends, Olivia (Madeleine Petsch), a star pupil, sweet at home with her loving and supportive parents, captain of the debating team, articulate in her speeches and arguments. She is relied on by the debating teacher, Mr Richardson.

Jane has had a strong influence on Olivia – and will begin to appear to Olivia during the action of the film, a kind of projection of what Olivia is thinking and feeling herself, and violently doing.

Real trouble begins when the debating teacher brings in a student from an East Coast school, suggesting that there be co-captaincy of the debating team. Olivia is violent, faints – something she does when the situation overpowers her. She is ambitious to get into Stanford but gets a letter to say that her entry is deferred – sending her into further collapse. And she is suspicious of the newcomer as Well Is various students in the school.

She teams up with a friend of Jane, close to her in the past but now forming again the friendship, Izzy (Chloe Bailey). Izzy is up for mischief and then teams up with Olivia, especially using Jane’s uniclosed online platform, causing mayhem in the classroom forcing Mrs West to be violent and her being expelled from the school. Then, with computer malice, exposing various girls to ridicule. There is also a visit to a party, with a particular target, drugs ingested and her collapse.

Olivia sails on her merry way, insinuating herself into the debating team again, becoming captain, her team winning. She is able to answer all the questions when the principal interrogates her. However, Izzy becomes suspicious, challenging, leading to a confrontation in a swimming pool with Olivia drowning her friend.

But, while we see Olivia’s mental condition and collapse, and her telling everyone that she wants to study mental health, and getting into Stanford, she sails on her merry way, images of Jane appearing to her. And, of course, this makes Jane open to a sequel to see more of Olivia’s mayhem.

SHAZAM! FURY OF THE GODS

US, 2023, 130 minutes, Colour.

Zachary Levi, Asher Angel, Jack Dylan Grazer, Rachel Zegler, Adam Brody, Ross Butler, D.J.Cotrona, Grace Caroline Currey, Meagan Good, Lucy Liu, Djimon Hounsou, Helen Mirren, Jovan Armand.

Directed by David F.Sandberg.

DC World Junior.

After the success of Shazam! In 2019, a sequel seemed to be in demand. However, this is a superhero show for youngsters. This reviewer, at a cinema complex, suddenly heard an 11-year-old boy standing near the poster for Shazam! excitedly shouting to his parents in eager anticipation. So, this rather long action adventure is for him and his peers.

Actually, the basic idea is not bad, a Wizard from ancient Greek mythology turning up in a neighbourhood in Philadelphia, deciding that a group of adopted youngsters should be endowed with superhero powers, all crying out Shazam! With consequent thunderous rumblings and, there they are, physically changed, older – but, the drawback for them, and for audience appreciation of them, they retain the limitations, especially of mind and understanding, of children. The central character, Billy, is referred to several times as an idiot, immature… And he is, despite the fact that he looks like Zachary Levi in a parallel-to-Superman costume and cloak.

The film relies very much on action and, perhaps even more, on special effects, special effects galore, flying through the air and catching fallen victims, lots of fights and confrontations, all kinds of strange creatures including a monstrous Dragon (with Lucy Liu riding it in her quest for power). The problem concerns a powerful staff from the past, kept in a museum, and sought after by three of the daughters of Atlas (6000 years old as one of them reveals that is she is), a powerful golden apple, and, the wizard (straining credibility) relying on these transformed youngsters to rectify the world situation – and to save the city of Philadelphia from disaster.

A lot of the action focuses on Freddy who needs a crutch to walk, encountering a charming young girl, Ann (the rather luminous Rachel Zegler, Maria from Spielberg’s West Side Story). She is charmed by him but has a great difficulty in so far as her older sisters, Hesperia (Helen Mirren) and Kalypso (Lucy Liu) want her to spy on the superheroes.

At the core of the film is certainly one mystery – how was Helen Mirren persuaded to take part in this film (although she is asked at one stage about the Fast and Furious series, her appearing in several of the films, and several of them being written by Chris Morgan, the co-writer of this film)! Helen Mirren, always the supreme artist, delivers her lines as if she were reciting Shakespeare or impersonating the Queen!

So, with all the special effects, with all the threats to Philadelphia, with Billy having some self-doubts, with his alter ego doing all the heroics but too often sounding as if he is auditioning for Dumb and Dumber, or a new franchise called Dork and Dorkier, this film may satisfy the youngest target audience. However, for adults, for parents accompanying their children, it may prove too silly, some of it too ludicrous, unbelievable – or, as a polite critic trying to find the acceptable word, “juvenile”.

THE MIRROR CRACK’D FROM SIDE TO SIDE

UK, 1992, 106 minutes, Colour.

Joan Hickson, Claire Bloom, Barry Newman, Norman Rodway, Elizabeth Garvie, John Cassady, David Horovitch, John Castle, Gwen Watford, Judy Cornwall, Christopher Hancock, Margaret Courtney.

Directed by Norman Stone.

Audiences have been devoted to Agatha Christie for decades, and to her films. This book was adapted for the big screen with Angela Lansbury as Miss Marple and stars Elizabeth Taylor, Kim Novak, Tony Curtis. It was also filmed with Geraldine McEwan.

However, Joan Hickson was Agatha Christie’s ideal of Miss Marple. She has elderly, always observant, respected by the police, alert to clues, putting ideas together, finding solutions.

Which is the case here, concerning a celebrated movie star, this time played by Claire Bloom who also had great success in Hollywood. Her direct husband is played by Barry Newman. There are a number of British character actors in support, by John Castle as Miss Marple’s nephew, Inspector Craddock, with Gwen Watford as a Dolly Bantry, her close friend, a cameo by Judy Cornwall (looking so different from her popular role as Daisy in Keeping up Appearances), Margaret Courtney as Miss Knight (but who had played Dolly Bantry in the Angela Lansbury film).

We are in St Mary Mead, Miss Marple’s home, and the mansion and its grounds. We also visit the film studios, watching a take for a film about Elizabeth of Austria, the studio offices.

It is a surprise when an incidental character, played by Judy Cornwall, dies at the reception at the mansion. It is certainly a question of who did it but a probing of why this could possibly happen. There are investigations, death threats, tantrums, and Miss Marple making a connection between the victim and the actress, leading to the solution.

This was the last film in Joan Hickson series.

1. The popularity of Agatha Christie? Miss Marple? The three actresses portraying her on television? Joan Hickson’s status?
2. The setting, St Mary Mead, the village, Miss Marple’s house, the mansion and grounds, the film studios and offices? The musical score?
3. The title, Tennyson, the curse on the Lady of Shalott?
4. The celebration of cinema, the old stars, Hollywood, the magazines, fans, celebrities? The scenes of filming? Elizabeth of Austria? Performances?
5. Marina Greg, Claire Bloom and her reputation, returning to England, the mansion, with her husband, the director, the bond between them? Her dominance? Finding home again, wanting to die in England? Holding the fete, the brass band, the visitors, atmosphere of joy? The encounter with Mrs Badcock? The photographer, the photos, Dolly commenting on Marina’s look, the lady of Shalott? The drinks, Mrs Badcock and her babble, the spilling of the drink, her death?
6. The Hollywood producer, insurance, bombastic, his relationship with Lola? Lola wanting the role? Relegated? Marina and her defiance? Allowing the scene to be filmed? To dinner with Marina and her husband?
7. Miss Marple, elderly, curious, observing, Miss Knight looking after her, fussing, the comic touches? The visit from Dolly, Dolly selling the mansion? The friendship of the two women? Dolly going to the mansion, the tour of the house, the ladies, the marble in the bathroom…?
8. Mrs Badcock, jovial, friendly, chatter, helping Miss Marple? Her nice husband? Her death, her husband’s grief, the post-mortem, the fact that she was murdered?
9. Inspector Craddock, nephew of Miss Marple, his associate, Detective Slack and orders? Craddock and his manner, the interviews? Relying on Miss Marple?
10. The director and his assistant, the roses, her devotion to him, the meal, everybody upset, her death? The fact that she had realise the truth, phone calls, blackmail?
11. The entourage, the Butler, the maids, at the studios?
12. Jerry, friendship with Miss Marple, the magazines, her friend, the visit, her suspicions that Marina had bumped Mrs Badcock purposely?
13. The husband, the notes, giving them to the police? His realisation that Marina had killed? Her death? Miss Marple's comment?
14. The photographer, Miss Marple seeing her in the church, at the celebration, the photos, the revelation about her relationship, Marina and the adopted children, her pregnancy, sending them away, the German meals and the effect on her baby? The interrogation of the photographer?
15. Miss Marple, the rubella, making the connections, Marina’s at meeting the woman who caused her baby’s illness? Revenge?
16. Miss Knight moving out, all the friends meeting, the end of this series with Joan Hickson has Miss Marple.

MSC Colombia and the US Province, Ordination.

The ordination Mass of Raúl Pérez Valdéz Msc and Ricardo Perdomo MSC.

Colombia has been the mission outreach of the US Province. In fact, former Superior General, Mark McDonald, spent time in Colombia as part of his ministry on the way to the Generalate.

With the recent ordinations, visitors from the US were Provincial, Richard Kennedy, Jim Miller who served for years in PNG and was Novice Master in Ireland, and Warren Perrotto who has spent time in Fiji.

Colombia is a growth area of the MSC - and Lay MSC

Bishops Conference explores integral ecology,  MSC Frx Kimi Vunivesilevu  and Stephen Hackett led the spirituality day

Preparations for our Provincial and General Chapters urge us to put Laudato Si into our lives and ministry.  Here is an MSC Laudato Si story.

Staff from its General Secretariat have extended the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference’s commitment to its Laudato Si’ Action Plan with a spirituality day focused on “An Integral Ecology of the Heart”.

Fr Kimi Vunivesilevu MSC and fellow Missionary of the Sacred Heart priest Fr Stephen Hackett, the general secretary of the Bishops Conference, guided staff through a four-part program.

The day, at St Clement’s Monastery in Galong, started with Scripture passages and other literature to help explore the Heart of God, followed by the opportunity for silent personal reflection and sharing on those reflections.

A similar pattern was followed for explorations of the Heart of Jesus, the Heart of Creation and the Heart of Each Person.

Fr Vunivesilevu, parish priest at St John the Apostle Kippax in Canberra, said the day explored, as best it could in that time, the broad vision of Pope Francis’ encyclical letter Laudato Si’, which can sometimes be reduced to the environment.

“Pope Francis speaks about an integral ecology – the interconnectedness of everything, and especially the connection between people, creation and the Creator,” he said.

“The spirituality day was a chance for those present to immerse ourselves in that reality, which isn’t something always easily achieved in the busyness of life.

“We were also able to experience the beauty of God’s creation in country Australia, reflecting on God’s word and the inspired writings of others.”

In 2021, the Bishops Conference made a commitment to developing a Laudato Si’ Action Plan – believed to be the first episcopal conference in the world to do so.

The 2021-22 Social Justice Statement, Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor, was part of the Church’s initial engagement in the plan.

The Bishops Conference has since established a Laudato Si working party, made up of staff from the General Secretariat and led by Bishop Vincent Long OFM Conv, chair of the Bishops Commission for Social Justice, Mission and Service.

Fr Hackett, a member of that working group, said the spirituality day was another opportunity to invite Conference staff to contemplate what an integral ecology means.

He said the Bishops Conference’s premises in Canberra have undergone changes in recent years to better reflect care for creation, including the installation of solar panels, more efficient lighting and appliances, and the use of composting and worm farms.

“The bishops have invited Catholics and Church entities across the country to see what incremental and practical steps can be taken, as well as that conversion of the heart,” Fr Hackett said.

“It is important that we at the Bishops Conference are part of that national effort.”

The spirituality day was the first the Bishops Conference has hosted offsite.

Monivae Memories: Paul Castley MSC, “erudite, gentler man of good humour…”,
  - Tony Wright, The Age, Saturday, March 18, 2023.

Each year, a group of Monivae former students gather on St Patrick’s Day for a meal, Paul always attending, Tony Wright often there. They had a conversation which led to this part of Tony Wright’s article on the beginning of the football season…
“These thoughts occurred over the last few days while chatting with Pat Dodson, now a splendidly bewhiskered senator, who a long time ago was the captain of our country school’s First XVIII.

We yarned about a few of the names we remembered, footy stripping away the years, and I was visited by the image of a stab passed from the young Dodson, whistling like a missile and with the power to strip the wind clean out of the poor sod required to receive it. Dodson’s team, and a few that followed, were all unbeatable. Lou Richards once came down from the smoke accompanied by photographer and produced a double page spread in the old Sun News-Pictorial that refer to our school as “the football factory”.

Photo, Herald Sun

It wasn’t far wrong, for in the late 1960s it was populated by a Cranage, an early REALITY, a Grinter, the Delahuntys and, a bit later, Billy Picken, to name a few who went on to thrill millions and create footy dynasties.

On Friday this week, the ability of footy to transport memories across a lifetime was further confirmed when I accompanied a few old boys to a St Patrick’s Day lunch.

Among the gathering was the priest who long ago coached those school teams, a big bloke named Paul Castley. We called him Mad Dog, for we feared his temperament while admiring the furious tenacity of spirit that turned the First XVIII into a winning machine.

He is an erudite, gentler man of good humour in his late 80s these days, but it remains difficult not to think of him raging up and down wintry boundaries all those decades ago, Roaring commands that thrilled those of us barracking, for it was the sound of another approaching victory, which was as much ours on the sidelines as that of the players.”

Diaconate, Kenji Konda MSC, photos.

Photos courtesy of Trieu Nguyen MSC

Processing in

Choir

Didgeridoo

Congregation

Anointing

Hands imposed

Kenji’s mother and stole

Mother and deacon son

Bishop Brady homily

Concelebrants