The Aventine Keyhole is said to allow the curious to peer through three sovereign territories at once: the Order of Malta’s property, Italy, and Vatican City (Photograph: Order of Malta)
Patrick Comerford
I have been to some of the smallest states in Europe over the years. Both the Vatican and San Marino are completely landlocked within Italian territory, yet are sovereign entities themselves, with all the international rights and obligations that entails.
Malta is off the coast of Italy, but it too is a sovereign, independent, internationally recognised state and, unlike San Marino and the Vatican, it is a full member of the European Union.
I have missed out on visiting Monaco, Lichtenstein and Andorra, which are also counted as European microstates, although on one occasion I came close to standing on former Andorran sovereign territory when I stood on the steps of the court building in Perpignan, once the supreme court of Andorra although it is in French territory.
Cyprus, where I have worked and been on holiday, and Luxembourg, are too large, both in land territory and population numbers, to be bring the six European microstates up to eight in number. The Isle of Man, which I visited in my teens, and the many Channel Islands, such as Guernsey, Jersey, Alderney and Sark, are not fully sovereign as they are crown dependencies of the United Kingdom and they do not represent themselves in international bodies such as the UN.
The former Supreme Court of Andorra was once in the French city of Perpignan (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
While the microstates have sovereignty over their own territory, there are small autonomous territories in Europe that, despite having more or less own independent government, executive branch, legislature, judiciary, police, and other trappings of independence, are nonetheless under the sovereignty of another state. Some of those anomalous places I have visited include Gibraltar, which is a British overseas territory surrounded by Spain, but not a separate independent state.
And I have been to places that are unusual, such as Mount Athos, the autonomous monastic community in Greece, often described as a monastic state and under the direct jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.
In Cyprus, I have passed though Akrotiri and Dhekelia, which is a British overseas territory, and I have crossed the ‘Green Line’ in Nicosia into the so-called ‘Turkish Republic of Norther Cyprus’, hardly a microstate as it remains essentially the Turkish-occupied part of the divided island and its statehood is not recognised by the UN, the EU, any EU member state or in international law.
The border crossing between San Marino and Italy … the mountain republic is totally surrounded by Italian territory (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
At times, counting these places is like counting sheep in restless or sleepless moments in the night, and reminiscent of the 99 Ealing comedy Passport to Pimlico, which I was writing about the week before last (7 August 2026). But over the weekend, I found myself asking whether I had missed out on listing one European microstate that I may also have visited in the past.
The Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes and of Malta, to give the order its formal and legal name, is a sovereign entity in its title and in international law and it has diplomatic relations with many sovereign states and nations. It no longer has territory, and certainly not in Jerusalem, Rhodes, or Malta, all of which I have visited in the past. On the other hand, some of the order’s buildings in Rome, including its headquarters at the Magistral Palace, have special autonomous privileges in Italian law.
Although not a state, the Order of Malta or the Knights of Malta is a sovereign entity under international law. It has permanent non-state observer status at the UN, it has full diplomatic relations, including embassies, with 115 states, it issues its own stamps, coins, passports and license plates, and it has its own army medical corps.
The Grand Master, who is elected for ten years, is known as the Prince and Grand Master, and is both the religious superior and the Sovereign of the Order of Malta, and also holds the title of Most Eminent Highness.
The biometric passports issued by the Order of Malta are diplomatic and service passports and are said to be among the rarest in the world, with only about 500 in total. They are reserved strictly for members of the government (Sovereign Council), diplomatic corps, and select humanitarian officials, and they are recognised in over 100 countries.
The Battle of Lepanto (1571) by Karel Škréta above the altar in the Church of Our Lady Beneath the Chain, a church linked to the Knights of Malta in Prague (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Two friends on Facebook were having a discussion the weekend before last about the international status of the Order of Malta. One suggested that the Order of Malta, rather than the Vatican, is technically the pedantic correct answer to the question, ‘What is the world’s smallest state?’
Unlike the Holy See, which is sovereign over the Vatican City, the Order of Malta has no territory. However, its headquarters in the Palazzo Malta on Via dei Condotti and the Villa Malta on the Aventine Hill are granted extraterritoriality by Italy, and Malta extends the same status to the order’s historical headquarters in Fort St Angelo.
The Aventine Keyhole is a famous peephole in the green door of the Villa del Priorato di Malta in Rome. Looking through the keyhole gives sight of a perfectly manicured garden hedge framing the dome of Saint Peter’s Basilica. This unique spot is said to allow the curious to peer through three sovereign territories at once: the order’s property, Italy, and Vatican City.
The Aventine Hill is one of the Seven Hills on which ancient Rome was built. I stayed once in Sant’Anselmo, the Benedictine Abbey on the Aventine Hill, as a guest during a conference on the Church in China. The campus includes Sant’Anselmo Abbey, the offices of the Benedictine Confederation, the residence of the Abbot Primate, the College of Sant’Anselmo, as well as the Church of Sant’Anselmo.
The campus faces onto the Piazza dei Cavalieri di Malta, the square on the Aventine Hill created in 1764 by the architect Giovanni Battista Piranesi. Outside, on the square, tourists queue up in long lines to peer through the keyhole of the ‘Buco della Serratura’ as they are told that are standing in one state (Italy), looking through another one (Order of Malta), and seeing a third (Vatican).
The former Palace of the Grand Masters in Valletta is now the office of the President of Malta (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
I have visited the former Palace of the Grand Masters in Rhodes. The Knights of Rhodes were expelled from the island by the Ottoman Turks in 1522, and the surviving knights sailed first to Crete, then under Venetian rule, as a staging and regrouping point before moving on to Sicily and eventually Malta, becoming the Knights of Malta. They lost their last footholds in Crete in 1669. The knights were expelled from Malta by Napoleon in 1798, and the former Palace of the Grand Masters in Valletta is now the office of the President of Malta.
Ever since, the Magistral Villa has been at the heart of the Order of Malta’s institutional life, welcoming heads of state, ambassadors and visitors from around the world. It is home to Piranesi’s Church of Santa Maria in Aventino and to the keyhole framing the dome of Saint Peter’s Basilica.
No passport checks are needed for this experience – but then I’ve never been asked for a passport going in or out of the Vatican or San Marino either. Unlike Monaco, San Marino or Andorra, neither the Vatican nor the Order of Malta has an international football team or football league. Monaco has own international team, but AS Monaco plays in Ligue 1, the top tier of French football, and very successfully too. San Marino is currently the lowest-ranked FIFA-affiliated national football team, having won only three matches since their inception. Its chances might improve dramatically if either the Vatican or San Marino decided to sign up, and perhaps signing up the Order of Malta might even increase the moral tone of the pressure on Gianno Infantino to stand down.
As for the knights’ former territories, Rhodes is a part of Greece and Malta is a sovereign, independent EU-member state. And Air Malta is not the air force of the Knights of Malta – its a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ryanair, and it operates scheduled flights on behalf of Ryanair. It’s more like the ‘Nights of Malta’ and the nearest you get to an order, I suppose, is the orderly queueing for ‘Priority’ and ‘Non-Priority’ boarding.
Malta Air … more like the ‘Nights of Malta’ than the ‘Knights of Malta’, flies the flag for Ryanair (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2026)
Showing posts with label Vatican. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vatican. Show all posts
31 August 2026
Peering through the keyhole,
but is the Order of Malta
Europe’s smallest microstate
or an anomalous leftover?
Labels:
Andorra,
Benedictines,
Church History,
Cyprus,
Glenstal Abbey,
Humour,
Italy,
Local History,
Malta,
Mount Athos,
Movies,
Nicosia,
Perpignan,
Pimlico,
Prague,
Rhodes,
San Marino,
Travel,
Valletta,
Vatican
17 July 2026
Four weddings and some
Wolseley funerals: stories
of marriage and divorce
in a Staffordshire family
Wolseley Hall, destroyed in a serious fire in the early 1950s and demolished in 1966 … the ancestral home of the Wolseley family
Patrick Comerford
I have been writing in recent weeks about the divorce scandal in the Talbot and Chetwynd family that becoming a sensation far beyond polite social circles in Victorian Rugeley and Lichfield in the 1860s and filled column after column in newspapers across the world.
During my summer rambles through Stafford, Rugeley, Wolseley, Lichfield and Tamworth, I was reminded of some of these marriages and divorces, with stories that must have created gossip among people who saw themselves at the centre of social life in south Staffordshire 150 or 200 years ago.
William Henry Chetwynd (1811-1890) and his wife Blanche Mary Talbot (1836-1898), 25 years his junior and a niece Henry Chetwynd-Talbot, 18th Earl of Shrewsbury, were involved in a sensational divorce case in 1864-1865. The gossip created by the case of Chetwynd v Chetwynd echoed, in many ways, the attention a century earlier to the bigamy and divorce trials involving the widowed Sir William Wolseley (1692-1779) and the widowed Ann Whitbey (1724-1782), a case that dragged on in civil and church courts over two years, from 1752 to 1754.
But I was reminded too during those summer walks of at least four other marriages in the Wolseley family down through the generations that were interesting and colourful. They may not have created scandal in the same ways but, at times, they saved the Wolseley family from what seemed like certain financial and social ruin.
The coat-of-arms used by the Duques de Losada y Lousada … but were they really entitled to their titles? (Source)
1, The Jamaican planter: was he a Spanish duke?
Marianne Wolseley (1813-1881) of Wolseley and Count Francis Baruch Lousada (1813-1870), who was born into a rich family of sugar planters in Jamaica, were married in Saint George’s Church, Hanover Square, London, on 25 November 1834. Marianne’s father, Sir Charles Wolseley (1769-1838), had succeeded as the seventh baronet in 1817 and was a radical politician who was at the storming of the Bastille in 1789 and was surety for some of the victims of the Peterloo Massacre in 1819. He was jailed in 1820 for sedition and conspiracy, and his political activism threatened the financial stability of his family.
However, his daughter Marianne managed to avoid her own possible financial and social ruin in 1834 when she married Count Francis Baruch Lousada. The Baruch Lousada family in Jamaica commissioned a Spanish herald and genealogist to produce a set of lurid, expensive-looking but specious documents enabling them to claim they were the successors to the titles of the Duque de Losada.
Isaac Lousada (1783-1857) assumed the title of Duque de Losada in 1848, and after he died his eldest son, Emanuel de Lousada, lost little time in making himself known as the Duke de Losada y Lousada, drafting and fabricating a family tree for an entry in Burke’s Peerage.
It is a pointless genealogical exercise to explain his claimed link to the Spanish duke, and there is no logical way to trace how the dukes inherited – in Spain – a moribund Italian title that had been held by someone they were not related to. The creative, but nonetheless fictitious, explanations are found in the work of the Spanish herald and genealogist, the gullibility of the genealogical authorities in Spain and London, and the audacity of Emanuel.
The reward for the whole escapade and the social and political compensation for the expenses in pursuing this genealogical deception were many: Emanuel received a British passport in 1862; his brother Francis married into the minor ranks of the British nobility when he married Marianne Wolseley, wangled another title in the court of the Grand Duke of Tuscany, and became a British diplomat in the US. Indeed, three further members of his immediate family went unchallenged in their use of the title of duke.
Another version of the coat-of-arms used by the Duque de Losada y Lousada … Marianne Wolseley was daughter-in-law of the first duke, sister-in-law of the second duke, and mother of the third and fourth dukes (Source)
In polite Victorian society, most people seem never to have queried the standing of the soi-disant dukes, overlooking their peculiar change of name, their use of a hybrid coat of arms and the lack of official authentication. Members of the Lousada family married into leading Sephardic families in England, including the Montefiore and Mocatta families.
Twelve years Marianne and Francis were married, Francis was given the title of Marchese de San Miniato by the Grand Duke of Tuscany in 1846. It was said widely at the time that he paid for the title while Marianne was a lady-in-waiting in London to the Grand Duchess of Tuscany.
Francis Lousada was the British Consul in Rhode Island and Massachusetts, and died in Boston in 1870. Marianne died on 1 November 1884 in Tarvis in Carinthia, Austria, now Tarvisio in Italy. Their eldest son, Horace Francis Lousada (1837-1905), succeeded his father as the second marchese and his uncle as the third duke. The fifth and last duke, Edward Eugene Lousada (1853-1941), returned to live in Jamaica.
The confirmation by Pope Leo XIII of Anita Murphy, later Lady Wolseley … a painting in the Villa Magistrale on the Aventine in Rome
2, the daughter of an American Papal ‘marchese’:
Marianne Wolseley’s marriage to this soi-disant marchese, and the titles used by her children create a story with many parallels in that of the marriage almost 30 years later in 1883 of her nephew, Sir Charles Wolseley (1846-1931), the ninth baronet, and Anita Murphy, the daughter of an Irish-American magnate, Daniel T Murphy, who bought the title of marchese from the Pope.
Sir Charles Wolseley may have found a role model or inspiration in his aunt Marianne, for he married into a wealthy family with a title that had been bought and in the hope of rescuing lost fortunes and social status.
Esther (née Chichester) Grehan wrote from London in 1882 to her husband in Dublin, Stephen Grehan (1859-1937), describing how Charles came to London to look for an heiress. My interest is added to by Stephen’s descent through his mother from the Langton and Comerford families of Danganmore Castle, Co Kilkenny. In her letters, laden with snobbery, elitism and disdain, Esther describes how Charles was introduced to two Irish-American Murphy sisters from San Francisco, who were ‘vulgar but pretty.’ He fell in love, but had a reputation as a fortune hunter, and was distraught when he was rejected.
But, undeterred, Charles married the elder sister, Anna Theresa (Anita) Murphy in 1883. Her father, an Irish-American entrepreneur Daniel T Murphy, founded the pioneer house of Murphy, Grant & Co, and was living in San Francisco. Anita, her sisters and her mother had moved to London, and they moved in fashionable circles in England and Europe. Anita was confirmed by Pope Leo XIII and a painting of Anita and her sister at their confirmation by Pope Leo XIII was once in the Wolseley family collection, and was still at Wolseley in 1971 when I interviewed Sir Charles Wolseley for the Lichfield Mercury and the Rugeley Mercury.
Later, Anita was presented at the Court of Saint James. She visited Osborne, the royal residence on the Isle of Wight, where she met Queen Victoria and Princess Beatrice, ancestor of the Mountbatten family. In her diary, Anita tells how she turned down a proposal of marriage from Prince Luigi del Drago, an Italian whose family included many cardinals and princes. Back in England, Anita’s first choice as husband was George Brundenell-Bruce, then known as Viscount Savernake and later 4th Marquess of Ailesbury. But Willie, as he was known, was an incessant gambler with an excessive lifestyle, and he brought his family to the brink of financial disaster. Eventually, he married Dolly Tester, a music hall actress, and Anita had a fortuitous escape from certain calamity.
Anita’s father, Daniel T Murphy, was a self-made multi-millionaire who had more money than he could spend. In 1857, he married Anna Geoghagan, also from an Irish family. The couple were the parents of four daughters, Isabella (Issy), Helene (Nellie), Anna Theresa (Anita) and Frances (Fanny), and three sons, Eugene, Daniel and Samuel.
Daniel Murphy visited his wife and daughters in London at least once a year. He was a staunch Roman Catholic and donated $5 million to Pope Pius IX. In return, the Pope made Murphy first a Knight and then a Knight Commander of the Order of Saint Gregory. Pope Leo XIII, who confirmed two of his daughters in Rome, gave Murphy the Grand Cross of Saint Gregory, and with a royal and papal patent of nobility, gave him the papal title of marchese or marquis, with the right of succession to his eldest son and his heirs.
Murphy enjoyed showing his American friends the papal patent, but he never used the title in public and his wife continued to be known in London only as Mrs Murphy and not as marchesa.
Anita Murphy and Sir Charles Wolseley were married on 17 July 1883 in the Catholic Pro-Cathedral in Kensington. The four bridesmaids were her three sisters, Nellie, Frances and Isabella, and a Miss Bedingfeld. The wedding Mass was said by the Revd Cuthbert Wolseley, OP, a Dominican priest and a younger brother of the groom – he was born Robert Joseph Wolseley (1850-1920). The wedding was blessed by Cardinal Henry Edward Manning, Archbishop of Westminster, and there was a telegram from Pope Leo XIII.
The newspapers of the day delighted in lengthy lists of the titled and public figures who attended, including the US ambassador and poet James Russell Lowell, the Duke of Norfolk, Prince Doria Pamphilji, a son-in-law of the Earl of Shrewsbury, the Marquis of Bute and Lady Londonderry.
Anita (Murphy) Wolseley tired of life at Wolseley Hall and travelled abroad, alone … it was divorce Catholic-style in the early 20th century
On the day Anita and Charles were married, Mrs Murphy gave her first-born a cheque for $5 million drawn on the Bank of England. Daniel T Murphy died within two years in the Windsor Hotel, New York, on 3 June 1885. Many of his business interests passed to his brother Henry M Murphy and son, also Daniel T Murphy. His wife had arrived from England earlier that week and was with him when he died, as were two of his sons and a daughter.
In his will, dated 15 May 1883, Murphy left various bequests to the Catholic Church and family members, with his daughters receiving at least $50,000 each, even if that meant his sons received less. At first, Anita’s inheritance was estimated at $2 million, but Charles Wolseley never got his hands on it. By the time the marriage contract had been signed, Daniel T Murphy had died Anita’s sisters contested their father’s will. When Anita received her money, it was for her personally and not for her husband.
Jeannie Wolseley later said the marriage was relatively happy to begin with; the couple were the parents of two sons, Sir Edric Charles Joseph Wolseley (1886-1954) and Colonel William Wolseley (1887-1977). But Anita soon tired of life at Wolseley Hall and in rural Staffordshire, and she began travelling abroad, alone. She sent Charles a regular allowance, but this dropped steadily. It was divorce Catholic-style in the early 20th century.
By 1919, he had to sell almost all the contents of Wolseley Hall and several hundred acres of his estate. A broken man, he moved to Surrey and died on 30 January 1931, and was brought back to Rugeley to be buried in Saint Joseph and Saint Etheldreda churchyard, where he had donated the East Window by Hardman and Powell; Anita died on 11 October 1937.
The grave of Sir Charles Wolseley (1846-1931), the ninth baronet, in Saint Joseph and Saint Etheldreda churchyard, Rugeley (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2026)
3, Colonel William Wolseley and the Catholic Church:
When Sir Charles Wolseley died in 1931, the Wolseley title and estate passed to his elder son, Sir Edric Wolseley, tenth baronet and grandfather of the late Sir Charles Wolseley. Their younger son, Colonel William Wolseley (1887-1977), also had an interesting life and his life story is also the story of yet another interesting Wolseley marriage.
William Ralph Joseph Wolseley was born in London on 1 July 1887, the younger son of Sir Charles Michael Wolseley and Anita Murphy. He was a captain in the Staffordshire Yeomanry during World War I, and was mentioned in dispatches and decorated. He was a Justice of the Peace for Shropshire from 1939, and during World War II he was a colonel in the Royal Pioneer Corps.
William Wolseley married a vicar’s granddaughter, Ruth Gertrude Hargreaves (1893-1962), in Gnosall on 10 November 1923. Ruth was one of three daughters of Colonel Robert Halstead Hargreaves (1861-1909) of Knightley Grange, near Eccleshall. Her maternal grandfather was the Revd Charles Holden Steward (1859-1915).
The Wolseley family were staunchly Catholic, but when William married Ruth, the vicar’s granddaughter she would not agree to bring up any future children as Roman Catholics. In order to go ahead with the marriage, William had to leave the Catholic Church and he was excommunicated.
Ruth (Hargreaves) Wolseley (left) as a child with her sisters Violet (centre) and Nancy
Family members tell me Ruth ‘smoked cigars like a chimney and swore like a trooper’. She was, by all accounts, a tiny woman with a very domineering character, who probably gave William little choice but to leave the Catholic Church in order to marry her. They lived at Knightley Grange, and during World War II Ruth was in the Women’s Land Army and the WVS. Although William was devoted to Ruth, family members believe his decision to leave the Catholic Church caused him great upset in later life.
Ruth and William were the parents of a son and daughter: Robert William Hargreaves Wolseley (1924-1998), and Veronica Ruth Theresa Rose Wolseley (1928-2019). Ruth died at Knightley Grange in 1962, William Wolseley died in 1977. Some of the more valuable contents of Knightley Grange were sold off at auction over two days in June 1966, and the property, which had been in the Hargreaves family for over 100 years, was sold in 1967.
The house at Knightley Grange was finally demolished in 2019.
The house at Knightley Grange where Ruth and William Wolseley lived after they married in 1923 was demolished in 2019
4, Another American in the family:
William Wolseley’s elder brother, Sir Edric Wolseley (1886-1954), was the grandfather of the late Sir Charles Wolseley (1944-2018), the 11th baronet. A painting of two of the Murphy girls at their confirmation by Pope Leo XIII was once among the paintings in the Wolseley family collection. It was still at Wolseley Park in 1971 when I interviewed Sir Charles for the Lichfield Mercury and the Rugeley Mercury.
It was a well-edited feature, with a fine photograph of Charles and his first Anita (Fried) and their eldest daughter. They warmly welcomed me to Wolseley Park House, more features followed on the Dyott, Anson, Levett and other families, and I built up a portfolio that helped to set me up for a 30-year career as a journalist.
At the time, I was in my late teens training as a chartered surveyor, and Charles Wolseley was then a chartered surveyor with Smith Gore in Lichfield, driving a trademark red sports car around town, commuting daily between Lichfield and Wolseley.
Charles and Anita were divorced in 1984, and later that year he married the American writer Imogen (Jeannie) Brown (1943-2024), who was researching a book on American heiresses who married impoverished English aristocrats.
When Charles and Jeannie had to move out of Wolseley to Penkridge after he was declared bankrupt, she talked about the painting being so large that it would be better placed in a museum in San Francisco. Today it is in the Villa Magistrale on the Aventine in Rome, where it was identified some years ago by Eduard Habsburg-Lothringen when he was the Hungarian Ambassador to the Vatican.
Sir Charles Wolseley and his second wife, Imogene (Jeannie) Brown, in 1992 … after their bankruptcy, they relied on the generosity of neighbours and friends
Family members recall how Charles and Jeannie Wolseley spoke openly of their situation and how people would come up to Charles in the supermarket in Rugeley and place a £10 note in his hand. Frequently they discovered gifts of food, money and even a car delivered to the house.
‘They were clearly a strong couple,’ a family member told me.
I wrote to him when I heard about his problems, enclosed a cutting of that full-page feature in the Lichfield Mercury and the Rugeley Mercury. I thanked him for an opportunity that secured a career in journalism that lasted most of my adult life, and thanked him too for that offer at Smiths Gore.
Despite his divorce and remarriage, Charles seems to have had a happier relationship with the Catholic Church than his uncle William. Charles died on 5 March 2018 and his funeral took place in Saint Joseph and Saint Etheldreda Church on 24 March 2018. His widow Jeannie died in Rugeley two years ago, on 11 July 2024, and her funeral was held in the church on 26 July 2024.
The Wolseley Arms by the River Trent near Rugeley in Staffordshire (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2026)
Patrick Comerford
I have been writing in recent weeks about the divorce scandal in the Talbot and Chetwynd family that becoming a sensation far beyond polite social circles in Victorian Rugeley and Lichfield in the 1860s and filled column after column in newspapers across the world.
During my summer rambles through Stafford, Rugeley, Wolseley, Lichfield and Tamworth, I was reminded of some of these marriages and divorces, with stories that must have created gossip among people who saw themselves at the centre of social life in south Staffordshire 150 or 200 years ago.
William Henry Chetwynd (1811-1890) and his wife Blanche Mary Talbot (1836-1898), 25 years his junior and a niece Henry Chetwynd-Talbot, 18th Earl of Shrewsbury, were involved in a sensational divorce case in 1864-1865. The gossip created by the case of Chetwynd v Chetwynd echoed, in many ways, the attention a century earlier to the bigamy and divorce trials involving the widowed Sir William Wolseley (1692-1779) and the widowed Ann Whitbey (1724-1782), a case that dragged on in civil and church courts over two years, from 1752 to 1754.
But I was reminded too during those summer walks of at least four other marriages in the Wolseley family down through the generations that were interesting and colourful. They may not have created scandal in the same ways but, at times, they saved the Wolseley family from what seemed like certain financial and social ruin.
The coat-of-arms used by the Duques de Losada y Lousada … but were they really entitled to their titles? (Source)
1, The Jamaican planter: was he a Spanish duke?
Marianne Wolseley (1813-1881) of Wolseley and Count Francis Baruch Lousada (1813-1870), who was born into a rich family of sugar planters in Jamaica, were married in Saint George’s Church, Hanover Square, London, on 25 November 1834. Marianne’s father, Sir Charles Wolseley (1769-1838), had succeeded as the seventh baronet in 1817 and was a radical politician who was at the storming of the Bastille in 1789 and was surety for some of the victims of the Peterloo Massacre in 1819. He was jailed in 1820 for sedition and conspiracy, and his political activism threatened the financial stability of his family.
However, his daughter Marianne managed to avoid her own possible financial and social ruin in 1834 when she married Count Francis Baruch Lousada. The Baruch Lousada family in Jamaica commissioned a Spanish herald and genealogist to produce a set of lurid, expensive-looking but specious documents enabling them to claim they were the successors to the titles of the Duque de Losada.
Isaac Lousada (1783-1857) assumed the title of Duque de Losada in 1848, and after he died his eldest son, Emanuel de Lousada, lost little time in making himself known as the Duke de Losada y Lousada, drafting and fabricating a family tree for an entry in Burke’s Peerage.
It is a pointless genealogical exercise to explain his claimed link to the Spanish duke, and there is no logical way to trace how the dukes inherited – in Spain – a moribund Italian title that had been held by someone they were not related to. The creative, but nonetheless fictitious, explanations are found in the work of the Spanish herald and genealogist, the gullibility of the genealogical authorities in Spain and London, and the audacity of Emanuel.
The reward for the whole escapade and the social and political compensation for the expenses in pursuing this genealogical deception were many: Emanuel received a British passport in 1862; his brother Francis married into the minor ranks of the British nobility when he married Marianne Wolseley, wangled another title in the court of the Grand Duke of Tuscany, and became a British diplomat in the US. Indeed, three further members of his immediate family went unchallenged in their use of the title of duke.
Another version of the coat-of-arms used by the Duque de Losada y Lousada … Marianne Wolseley was daughter-in-law of the first duke, sister-in-law of the second duke, and mother of the third and fourth dukes (Source)
In polite Victorian society, most people seem never to have queried the standing of the soi-disant dukes, overlooking their peculiar change of name, their use of a hybrid coat of arms and the lack of official authentication. Members of the Lousada family married into leading Sephardic families in England, including the Montefiore and Mocatta families.
Twelve years Marianne and Francis were married, Francis was given the title of Marchese de San Miniato by the Grand Duke of Tuscany in 1846. It was said widely at the time that he paid for the title while Marianne was a lady-in-waiting in London to the Grand Duchess of Tuscany.
Francis Lousada was the British Consul in Rhode Island and Massachusetts, and died in Boston in 1870. Marianne died on 1 November 1884 in Tarvis in Carinthia, Austria, now Tarvisio in Italy. Their eldest son, Horace Francis Lousada (1837-1905), succeeded his father as the second marchese and his uncle as the third duke. The fifth and last duke, Edward Eugene Lousada (1853-1941), returned to live in Jamaica.
The confirmation by Pope Leo XIII of Anita Murphy, later Lady Wolseley … a painting in the Villa Magistrale on the Aventine in Rome
2, the daughter of an American Papal ‘marchese’:
Marianne Wolseley’s marriage to this soi-disant marchese, and the titles used by her children create a story with many parallels in that of the marriage almost 30 years later in 1883 of her nephew, Sir Charles Wolseley (1846-1931), the ninth baronet, and Anita Murphy, the daughter of an Irish-American magnate, Daniel T Murphy, who bought the title of marchese from the Pope.
Sir Charles Wolseley may have found a role model or inspiration in his aunt Marianne, for he married into a wealthy family with a title that had been bought and in the hope of rescuing lost fortunes and social status.
Esther (née Chichester) Grehan wrote from London in 1882 to her husband in Dublin, Stephen Grehan (1859-1937), describing how Charles came to London to look for an heiress. My interest is added to by Stephen’s descent through his mother from the Langton and Comerford families of Danganmore Castle, Co Kilkenny. In her letters, laden with snobbery, elitism and disdain, Esther describes how Charles was introduced to two Irish-American Murphy sisters from San Francisco, who were ‘vulgar but pretty.’ He fell in love, but had a reputation as a fortune hunter, and was distraught when he was rejected.
But, undeterred, Charles married the elder sister, Anna Theresa (Anita) Murphy in 1883. Her father, an Irish-American entrepreneur Daniel T Murphy, founded the pioneer house of Murphy, Grant & Co, and was living in San Francisco. Anita, her sisters and her mother had moved to London, and they moved in fashionable circles in England and Europe. Anita was confirmed by Pope Leo XIII and a painting of Anita and her sister at their confirmation by Pope Leo XIII was once in the Wolseley family collection, and was still at Wolseley in 1971 when I interviewed Sir Charles Wolseley for the Lichfield Mercury and the Rugeley Mercury.
Later, Anita was presented at the Court of Saint James. She visited Osborne, the royal residence on the Isle of Wight, where she met Queen Victoria and Princess Beatrice, ancestor of the Mountbatten family. In her diary, Anita tells how she turned down a proposal of marriage from Prince Luigi del Drago, an Italian whose family included many cardinals and princes. Back in England, Anita’s first choice as husband was George Brundenell-Bruce, then known as Viscount Savernake and later 4th Marquess of Ailesbury. But Willie, as he was known, was an incessant gambler with an excessive lifestyle, and he brought his family to the brink of financial disaster. Eventually, he married Dolly Tester, a music hall actress, and Anita had a fortuitous escape from certain calamity.
Anita’s father, Daniel T Murphy, was a self-made multi-millionaire who had more money than he could spend. In 1857, he married Anna Geoghagan, also from an Irish family. The couple were the parents of four daughters, Isabella (Issy), Helene (Nellie), Anna Theresa (Anita) and Frances (Fanny), and three sons, Eugene, Daniel and Samuel.
Daniel Murphy visited his wife and daughters in London at least once a year. He was a staunch Roman Catholic and donated $5 million to Pope Pius IX. In return, the Pope made Murphy first a Knight and then a Knight Commander of the Order of Saint Gregory. Pope Leo XIII, who confirmed two of his daughters in Rome, gave Murphy the Grand Cross of Saint Gregory, and with a royal and papal patent of nobility, gave him the papal title of marchese or marquis, with the right of succession to his eldest son and his heirs.
Murphy enjoyed showing his American friends the papal patent, but he never used the title in public and his wife continued to be known in London only as Mrs Murphy and not as marchesa.
Anita Murphy and Sir Charles Wolseley were married on 17 July 1883 in the Catholic Pro-Cathedral in Kensington. The four bridesmaids were her three sisters, Nellie, Frances and Isabella, and a Miss Bedingfeld. The wedding Mass was said by the Revd Cuthbert Wolseley, OP, a Dominican priest and a younger brother of the groom – he was born Robert Joseph Wolseley (1850-1920). The wedding was blessed by Cardinal Henry Edward Manning, Archbishop of Westminster, and there was a telegram from Pope Leo XIII.
The newspapers of the day delighted in lengthy lists of the titled and public figures who attended, including the US ambassador and poet James Russell Lowell, the Duke of Norfolk, Prince Doria Pamphilji, a son-in-law of the Earl of Shrewsbury, the Marquis of Bute and Lady Londonderry.
Anita (Murphy) Wolseley tired of life at Wolseley Hall and travelled abroad, alone … it was divorce Catholic-style in the early 20th century
On the day Anita and Charles were married, Mrs Murphy gave her first-born a cheque for $5 million drawn on the Bank of England. Daniel T Murphy died within two years in the Windsor Hotel, New York, on 3 June 1885. Many of his business interests passed to his brother Henry M Murphy and son, also Daniel T Murphy. His wife had arrived from England earlier that week and was with him when he died, as were two of his sons and a daughter.
In his will, dated 15 May 1883, Murphy left various bequests to the Catholic Church and family members, with his daughters receiving at least $50,000 each, even if that meant his sons received less. At first, Anita’s inheritance was estimated at $2 million, but Charles Wolseley never got his hands on it. By the time the marriage contract had been signed, Daniel T Murphy had died Anita’s sisters contested their father’s will. When Anita received her money, it was for her personally and not for her husband.
Jeannie Wolseley later said the marriage was relatively happy to begin with; the couple were the parents of two sons, Sir Edric Charles Joseph Wolseley (1886-1954) and Colonel William Wolseley (1887-1977). But Anita soon tired of life at Wolseley Hall and in rural Staffordshire, and she began travelling abroad, alone. She sent Charles a regular allowance, but this dropped steadily. It was divorce Catholic-style in the early 20th century.
By 1919, he had to sell almost all the contents of Wolseley Hall and several hundred acres of his estate. A broken man, he moved to Surrey and died on 30 January 1931, and was brought back to Rugeley to be buried in Saint Joseph and Saint Etheldreda churchyard, where he had donated the East Window by Hardman and Powell; Anita died on 11 October 1937.
The grave of Sir Charles Wolseley (1846-1931), the ninth baronet, in Saint Joseph and Saint Etheldreda churchyard, Rugeley (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2026)
3, Colonel William Wolseley and the Catholic Church:
When Sir Charles Wolseley died in 1931, the Wolseley title and estate passed to his elder son, Sir Edric Wolseley, tenth baronet and grandfather of the late Sir Charles Wolseley. Their younger son, Colonel William Wolseley (1887-1977), also had an interesting life and his life story is also the story of yet another interesting Wolseley marriage.
William Ralph Joseph Wolseley was born in London on 1 July 1887, the younger son of Sir Charles Michael Wolseley and Anita Murphy. He was a captain in the Staffordshire Yeomanry during World War I, and was mentioned in dispatches and decorated. He was a Justice of the Peace for Shropshire from 1939, and during World War II he was a colonel in the Royal Pioneer Corps.
William Wolseley married a vicar’s granddaughter, Ruth Gertrude Hargreaves (1893-1962), in Gnosall on 10 November 1923. Ruth was one of three daughters of Colonel Robert Halstead Hargreaves (1861-1909) of Knightley Grange, near Eccleshall. Her maternal grandfather was the Revd Charles Holden Steward (1859-1915).
The Wolseley family were staunchly Catholic, but when William married Ruth, the vicar’s granddaughter she would not agree to bring up any future children as Roman Catholics. In order to go ahead with the marriage, William had to leave the Catholic Church and he was excommunicated.
Ruth (Hargreaves) Wolseley (left) as a child with her sisters Violet (centre) and Nancy
Family members tell me Ruth ‘smoked cigars like a chimney and swore like a trooper’. She was, by all accounts, a tiny woman with a very domineering character, who probably gave William little choice but to leave the Catholic Church in order to marry her. They lived at Knightley Grange, and during World War II Ruth was in the Women’s Land Army and the WVS. Although William was devoted to Ruth, family members believe his decision to leave the Catholic Church caused him great upset in later life.
Ruth and William were the parents of a son and daughter: Robert William Hargreaves Wolseley (1924-1998), and Veronica Ruth Theresa Rose Wolseley (1928-2019). Ruth died at Knightley Grange in 1962, William Wolseley died in 1977. Some of the more valuable contents of Knightley Grange were sold off at auction over two days in June 1966, and the property, which had been in the Hargreaves family for over 100 years, was sold in 1967.
The house at Knightley Grange was finally demolished in 2019.
The house at Knightley Grange where Ruth and William Wolseley lived after they married in 1923 was demolished in 2019
4, Another American in the family:
William Wolseley’s elder brother, Sir Edric Wolseley (1886-1954), was the grandfather of the late Sir Charles Wolseley (1944-2018), the 11th baronet. A painting of two of the Murphy girls at their confirmation by Pope Leo XIII was once among the paintings in the Wolseley family collection. It was still at Wolseley Park in 1971 when I interviewed Sir Charles for the Lichfield Mercury and the Rugeley Mercury.
It was a well-edited feature, with a fine photograph of Charles and his first Anita (Fried) and their eldest daughter. They warmly welcomed me to Wolseley Park House, more features followed on the Dyott, Anson, Levett and other families, and I built up a portfolio that helped to set me up for a 30-year career as a journalist.
At the time, I was in my late teens training as a chartered surveyor, and Charles Wolseley was then a chartered surveyor with Smith Gore in Lichfield, driving a trademark red sports car around town, commuting daily between Lichfield and Wolseley.
Charles and Anita were divorced in 1984, and later that year he married the American writer Imogen (Jeannie) Brown (1943-2024), who was researching a book on American heiresses who married impoverished English aristocrats.
When Charles and Jeannie had to move out of Wolseley to Penkridge after he was declared bankrupt, she talked about the painting being so large that it would be better placed in a museum in San Francisco. Today it is in the Villa Magistrale on the Aventine in Rome, where it was identified some years ago by Eduard Habsburg-Lothringen when he was the Hungarian Ambassador to the Vatican.
Sir Charles Wolseley and his second wife, Imogene (Jeannie) Brown, in 1992 … after their bankruptcy, they relied on the generosity of neighbours and friends
Family members recall how Charles and Jeannie Wolseley spoke openly of their situation and how people would come up to Charles in the supermarket in Rugeley and place a £10 note in his hand. Frequently they discovered gifts of food, money and even a car delivered to the house.
‘They were clearly a strong couple,’ a family member told me.
I wrote to him when I heard about his problems, enclosed a cutting of that full-page feature in the Lichfield Mercury and the Rugeley Mercury. I thanked him for an opportunity that secured a career in journalism that lasted most of my adult life, and thanked him too for that offer at Smiths Gore.
Despite his divorce and remarriage, Charles seems to have had a happier relationship with the Catholic Church than his uncle William. Charles died on 5 March 2018 and his funeral took place in Saint Joseph and Saint Etheldreda Church on 24 March 2018. His widow Jeannie died in Rugeley two years ago, on 11 July 2024, and her funeral was held in the church on 26 July 2024.
The Wolseley Arms by the River Trent near Rugeley in Staffordshire (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2026)
15 June 2026
Daily prayer in Ordinary Time 2026:
39, Monday 15 June 2026
Barry Blitt’s ‘Out Cold’ cartoon on the cover of today's edition of ‘The New Yorker’ on Trump’s birthday cage fight … in the face of increasing evil in the world, how do we interpret the words in today’s Gospel, ‘Do not resist an evildoer’ (Matthew 5: 39)?
Patrick Comerford
We are in Ordinary Time and the week began yesterday with the Second Sunday after Trinity (14 June 2025). The calendar of the Church of England in Common Worship today remembers Evelyn Underhill (1875-1941), Spiritual Writer.
But, before today begins, I am taking some quiet time this morning to give thanks, to reflect, to pray and to read in these ways:
1, reading today’s Gospel reading;
2, a short reflection;
3, a prayer from the USPG prayer diary;
4, the Collects and Post-Communion prayer of the day.
‘You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I say to you …’ (Matthew 5: 38-39) … street art in Dublin (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Matthew 5: 38-42 (NRSVA):
[Jesus said:] 38 ‘You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” 39 But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; 40 and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; 41 and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. 42 Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.’
‘But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also’ (Matthew 5: 39) … street art in Plaza de la Judería in Malaga (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Today’s Reflections:
The Gospel reading for the Eucharist this morning (Matthew 5: 38-42) continues our series of readings from the Sermon on the Mount, and this is a Gospel reading that has often been misused and misinterpreted.
The suggestion, ‘Do not resist an evildoer,’ is in danger of being used to turn someone into a doormat, to tolerate domestic violence or to forgive constant physical or psychological abuse, to keep people from walking away from abuse, resisting oppression or even turning to revolution.
The translation, ‘Do not resist an evildoer’ (verse 39) fails to convey the full meaning of the underlying Greek. The word ἀνθίστημι (antheestimee) speaks of setting oneself against something, withstanding, resisting or opposing it. But it might better be translated as, ‘Do not violently resist an evildoer.’ The teaching here is primarily about nonviolence, but it is not about acquiescence to evil, still less about being complicit in evil.
Christ then goes on immediately to offer three clear examples (verses 39-41) of how to nonviolently resist an evildoer – in fact, how to publicly shame and mock an evildoer.
These passages are tragically misinterpreted because we have forgotten the original society in which Jesus gave these teachings. When Christ says, ‘If anyone …,’ he and his listeners knew instantly who that ‘anyone’ was. He describes three types of insulting and humiliating behaviour: slapping someone on the right cheek (verse 39), suing them in court for their personal goods (verse 40), and forcing them to go a mile (verse 41). These are not the kind of things anyone, just anyone, could do. They are the kind of things only a privileged few could do – and did – to the sort of people who were in the crowd listening to Christ that day.
So, let’s look at each of these in turn
Verse 39
Slapping the right cheek: This was done by masters to their servants and slaves, and it was always done by hitting with the back of the right hand across the right cheek. The blow was about asserting status and power over the other person. This is not about random violence or fighting among friends or enemies. It is about asserting rank, privilege and power.
In order to preserve one’s honour – to preserve one’s public standing – it is crucial everything must be done according to the socially accepted protocols. The slave must obediently stand facing the master without external coercion. The master must strike only the right cheek; and only with the back of the right hand. Any variation on this would show that he was not in control; it would be a public loss of face.
Now imagine your boss has just slapped you on your right cheek; without saying a word, you then silently turn your head to expose your left cheek. It appears that you are becoming doubly subservient; doubly accepting his authority over you. But in this one movement you have made him powerless.
Turning your head hides your right cheek and presents your left cheek. But the angle of your head is such that the master can see, but cannot strike your left cheek with the back of his right hand. Try to mimic this with someone you know later today, and see what happens.
A move like this would publicly expose the master to shame and ridicule. You would appear to be meek and servile, obediently waiting for a second blow. But he would be totally helpless. He has three options: to hit you with the palm of his right hand; to use his left hand; or to walk away. To choose any one of these three options means he would lose face.
Verse 40
to sue you: Peasants did not sue one another. Again, this example of public humiliation is one about the abuse of the poor by those with power and privilege. Most peasants only owned the clothes on their backs.
What is being sued for here is not a coat, but a χιτών (chitón), which is an undergarment, usually worn next to the skin. To be sued for my coat would be humiliating enough; to be sued for my underwear would be truly humiliating. I would have nothing left to stand in. Going naked would be a radical way of exposing, laying bare, the shame which allows someone with wealth and privilege to take away the only thing a poor person owns.
Verse 41
forces you to go one mile: In those days, soldiers were allowed to conscript civilians to carry their packs, but only for a mile. However, this was no minor inconvenience for someone who depended on their work to feed and clothe his family. Walking a mile with a heavy pack and then having to walk back again would mean missing that day’s work, that day’s pay, and the food that pay would have paid for.
Offering to go a second mile would relieve another person of this unjust burden, but at the same time it would publicly expose the unjust hardship of being forced to go even one mile. Yet it does so in a way that seems to co-operate while at the same time bringing shame and ridicule on the person who is forcing you to bear unfair burdens.
Verse 42
Begging and borrowing: Begging and borrowing are complex social interactions that involve negotiating honour and shame, social respect and status, and money. But Christ’s teaching here is directed to those who have, and not to the have-nots. He is talking not to beggars and borrowers, but to those who are asked for loans and alms.
Christ tells us to treat all who entreat us as if they were our closest family. This surely breaks down the customary social barriers between the haves and the have-nots, it changes the social relationship to one of kinship. But when we come to God, begging and pleading, do we not come as children come to their father?
There are similarly difficult questions as we continue to read from this passage tomorrow.
‘If anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well’ (Matthew 5: 40) … street art seen at the University of Padua (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Today’s Prayers (Monday 15 June 2026):
In Pray with the World Church, the prayer diary of the Anglican mission agency USPG (United Society Partners in the Gospel), the theme this week, from 14 to 20 June 2026 (pp 10-11), is ‘Rooted in Compassion’. This theme was introduced yesterday by the Ven Titus Oluwalusi, the Anglican Chaplain at Saint John’s Church in Casablanca, Morocco.
The USPG prayer diary today (Monday 15 June 2026) invites us to pray:
Heavenly Father, thank you for showing us perfect love. Inspired by your Son, Jesus Christ, cultivate in us this fruit of the Spirit, that through our lives your holy name may be glorified.
The Collect of the Day:
Lord, you have taught us
that all our doings without love are nothing worth:
send your Holy Spirit
and pour into our hearts that most excellent gift of love,
the true bond of peace and of all virtues,
without which whoever lives is counted dead before you.
Grant this for your only Son Jesus Christ’s sake,
who is alive and reigns with you,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, now and for ever. Spirit,
one God, now and for ever.
The Post-Communion Prayer:
Loving Father,
we thank you for feeding us at the supper of your Son:
sustain us with your Spirit,
that we may serve you here on earth
until our joy is complete in heaven,
and we share in the eternal banquet
with Jesus Christ our Lord.
Additional Collect:
Faithful Creator,
whose mercy never fails:
deepen our faithfulness to you
and to your living Word,
Jesus Christ our Lord.
Yesterday’s Reflections
Continued Tomorrow
‘Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you’ (Matthew 5: 42) … ‘Christ the Beggar’ … a sculpture by Timothy Schmalz on the steps of Santo Spirito Hospital near the Vatican (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Scripture quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible: Anglicised Edition copyright © 1989, 1995, National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide. http://nrsvbibles.org
Patrick Comerford
We are in Ordinary Time and the week began yesterday with the Second Sunday after Trinity (14 June 2025). The calendar of the Church of England in Common Worship today remembers Evelyn Underhill (1875-1941), Spiritual Writer.
But, before today begins, I am taking some quiet time this morning to give thanks, to reflect, to pray and to read in these ways:
1, reading today’s Gospel reading;
2, a short reflection;
3, a prayer from the USPG prayer diary;
4, the Collects and Post-Communion prayer of the day.
‘You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I say to you …’ (Matthew 5: 38-39) … street art in Dublin (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Matthew 5: 38-42 (NRSVA):
[Jesus said:] 38 ‘You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” 39 But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; 40 and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; 41 and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. 42 Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.’
‘But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also’ (Matthew 5: 39) … street art in Plaza de la Judería in Malaga (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Today’s Reflections:
The Gospel reading for the Eucharist this morning (Matthew 5: 38-42) continues our series of readings from the Sermon on the Mount, and this is a Gospel reading that has often been misused and misinterpreted.
The suggestion, ‘Do not resist an evildoer,’ is in danger of being used to turn someone into a doormat, to tolerate domestic violence or to forgive constant physical or psychological abuse, to keep people from walking away from abuse, resisting oppression or even turning to revolution.
The translation, ‘Do not resist an evildoer’ (verse 39) fails to convey the full meaning of the underlying Greek. The word ἀνθίστημι (antheestimee) speaks of setting oneself against something, withstanding, resisting or opposing it. But it might better be translated as, ‘Do not violently resist an evildoer.’ The teaching here is primarily about nonviolence, but it is not about acquiescence to evil, still less about being complicit in evil.
Christ then goes on immediately to offer three clear examples (verses 39-41) of how to nonviolently resist an evildoer – in fact, how to publicly shame and mock an evildoer.
These passages are tragically misinterpreted because we have forgotten the original society in which Jesus gave these teachings. When Christ says, ‘If anyone …,’ he and his listeners knew instantly who that ‘anyone’ was. He describes three types of insulting and humiliating behaviour: slapping someone on the right cheek (verse 39), suing them in court for their personal goods (verse 40), and forcing them to go a mile (verse 41). These are not the kind of things anyone, just anyone, could do. They are the kind of things only a privileged few could do – and did – to the sort of people who were in the crowd listening to Christ that day.
So, let’s look at each of these in turn
Verse 39
Slapping the right cheek: This was done by masters to their servants and slaves, and it was always done by hitting with the back of the right hand across the right cheek. The blow was about asserting status and power over the other person. This is not about random violence or fighting among friends or enemies. It is about asserting rank, privilege and power.
In order to preserve one’s honour – to preserve one’s public standing – it is crucial everything must be done according to the socially accepted protocols. The slave must obediently stand facing the master without external coercion. The master must strike only the right cheek; and only with the back of the right hand. Any variation on this would show that he was not in control; it would be a public loss of face.
Now imagine your boss has just slapped you on your right cheek; without saying a word, you then silently turn your head to expose your left cheek. It appears that you are becoming doubly subservient; doubly accepting his authority over you. But in this one movement you have made him powerless.
Turning your head hides your right cheek and presents your left cheek. But the angle of your head is such that the master can see, but cannot strike your left cheek with the back of his right hand. Try to mimic this with someone you know later today, and see what happens.
A move like this would publicly expose the master to shame and ridicule. You would appear to be meek and servile, obediently waiting for a second blow. But he would be totally helpless. He has three options: to hit you with the palm of his right hand; to use his left hand; or to walk away. To choose any one of these three options means he would lose face.
Verse 40
to sue you: Peasants did not sue one another. Again, this example of public humiliation is one about the abuse of the poor by those with power and privilege. Most peasants only owned the clothes on their backs.
What is being sued for here is not a coat, but a χιτών (chitón), which is an undergarment, usually worn next to the skin. To be sued for my coat would be humiliating enough; to be sued for my underwear would be truly humiliating. I would have nothing left to stand in. Going naked would be a radical way of exposing, laying bare, the shame which allows someone with wealth and privilege to take away the only thing a poor person owns.
Verse 41
forces you to go one mile: In those days, soldiers were allowed to conscript civilians to carry their packs, but only for a mile. However, this was no minor inconvenience for someone who depended on their work to feed and clothe his family. Walking a mile with a heavy pack and then having to walk back again would mean missing that day’s work, that day’s pay, and the food that pay would have paid for.
Offering to go a second mile would relieve another person of this unjust burden, but at the same time it would publicly expose the unjust hardship of being forced to go even one mile. Yet it does so in a way that seems to co-operate while at the same time bringing shame and ridicule on the person who is forcing you to bear unfair burdens.
Verse 42
Begging and borrowing: Begging and borrowing are complex social interactions that involve negotiating honour and shame, social respect and status, and money. But Christ’s teaching here is directed to those who have, and not to the have-nots. He is talking not to beggars and borrowers, but to those who are asked for loans and alms.
Christ tells us to treat all who entreat us as if they were our closest family. This surely breaks down the customary social barriers between the haves and the have-nots, it changes the social relationship to one of kinship. But when we come to God, begging and pleading, do we not come as children come to their father?
There are similarly difficult questions as we continue to read from this passage tomorrow.
‘If anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well’ (Matthew 5: 40) … street art seen at the University of Padua (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Today’s Prayers (Monday 15 June 2026):
In Pray with the World Church, the prayer diary of the Anglican mission agency USPG (United Society Partners in the Gospel), the theme this week, from 14 to 20 June 2026 (pp 10-11), is ‘Rooted in Compassion’. This theme was introduced yesterday by the Ven Titus Oluwalusi, the Anglican Chaplain at Saint John’s Church in Casablanca, Morocco.
The USPG prayer diary today (Monday 15 June 2026) invites us to pray:
Heavenly Father, thank you for showing us perfect love. Inspired by your Son, Jesus Christ, cultivate in us this fruit of the Spirit, that through our lives your holy name may be glorified.
The Collect of the Day:
Lord, you have taught us
that all our doings without love are nothing worth:
send your Holy Spirit
and pour into our hearts that most excellent gift of love,
the true bond of peace and of all virtues,
without which whoever lives is counted dead before you.
Grant this for your only Son Jesus Christ’s sake,
who is alive and reigns with you,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, now and for ever. Spirit,
one God, now and for ever.
The Post-Communion Prayer:
Loving Father,
we thank you for feeding us at the supper of your Son:
sustain us with your Spirit,
that we may serve you here on earth
until our joy is complete in heaven,
and we share in the eternal banquet
with Jesus Christ our Lord.
Additional Collect:
Faithful Creator,
whose mercy never fails:
deepen our faithfulness to you
and to your living Word,
Jesus Christ our Lord.
Yesterday’s Reflections
Continued Tomorrow
‘Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you’ (Matthew 5: 42) … ‘Christ the Beggar’ … a sculpture by Timothy Schmalz on the steps of Santo Spirito Hospital near the Vatican (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Scripture quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible: Anglicised Edition copyright © 1989, 1995, National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide. http://nrsvbibles.org
16 June 2025
Daily prayer in Ordinary Time 2025:
38, Monday 16 June 2025,
Trinity Monday
Martin Rowson’s cartoon on Donald Trump’s birthday parade in the Guardian on Saturday … in the face of increasing evil in the world today, how do we interpret the words in today’s Gospel reading ‘Do not resist an evildoer’ (Matthew 5: 39)?
Patrick Comerford
We are in Ordinary Time and the week began yesterday with Trinity Sunday (15 June 2025); in many places today is also Trinity Monday. The calendar of the Church of England in Common Worship today remembers Richard (1253), Bishop of Chichester, and Joseph Butler (1752), Bishop of Durham, Philosopher.
But, before today begins, I am taking some quiet time this morning to give thanks, to reflect, to pray and to read in these ways:
1, reading today’s Gospel reading;
2, a short reflection;
3, a prayer from the USPG prayer diary;
4, the Collects and Post-Communion prayer of the day.
‘You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I say to you …’ (Matthew 5: 38-39) … street art in Dublin (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Matthew 5: 38-42 (NRSVA):
[Jesus said:] 38 ‘You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” 39 But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; 40 and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; 41 and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. 42 Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.’
‘But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also’ (Matthew 5: 39) … street art in Plaza de la Judería in Malaga (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Today’s Reflection:
The Gospel reading for the Eucharist this morning (Matthew 5: 38-42) continues our readings from the Sermon on the Mount, and our Gospel readings have often been misused and misinterpreted.
The suggestion, ‘Do not resist an evildoer,’ is in danger of being used to turn someone into a doormat, to tolerate domestic violence or to forgive constant physical or psychological abuse, to keep people from walking away from abuse, resisting oppression or even turning to revolution.
Verse 39
The translation, ‘Do not resist an evildoer,’ fails to convey the full meaning of the underlying Greek. The word ἀνθίστημι (antheestimee) speaks of setting oneself against something, withstanding, resisting or opposing it. But it might better be translated as, ‘Do not violently resist an evildoer.’ The teaching here is primarily about nonviolence, but it is not about acquiescence to evil.
In fact, Christ then goes on immediately to offer three clear examples (verses 39-41) of how to nonviolently resist an evildoer – in fact, how to publicly shame and mock an evildoer.
These passages are tragically misinterpreted because we have forgotten the original society in which Jesus gave these teachings. When Christ says, ‘If anyone …,’ he and his listeners knew instantly who that ‘anyone’ was. He describes three types of insulting and humiliating behaviour: slapping someone on the right cheek (verse 39), suing them in court for their personal goods (verse 40), and forcing them to go a mile (verse 41). These are not the kind of things anyone, just anyone, could do. They are the kind of things only a privileged few could do – and did – to the sort of people who were in the crowd listening to Christ that day.
So, let’s look at each of these in turn
Verse 39
Slapping the right cheek: This was done by masters to their servants and slaves, and it was always done by hitting with the back of the right hand across the right cheek. The blow was about asserting status and power over the other person. This is not about random violence or fighting among friends or enemies. It is about asserting rank, privilege and power.
In order to preserve one’s honour – to preserve one’s public standing – it is crucial everything must be done according to the socially accepted protocols. The slave must obediently stand facing the master without external coercion. The master must strike only the right cheek; and only with the back of the right hand. Any variation on this would show that he was not in control; it would be a public loss of face.
Now imagine your boss has just slapped you on your right cheek; without saying a word, you then silently turn your head to expose your left cheek. It appears that you are becoming doubly subservient; doubly accepting his authority over you. But in this one movement you have made him powerless.
Turning your head hides your right cheek and presents your left cheek. But the angle of your head is such that the master can see, but cannot strike your left cheek with the back of his right hand. Try to mimic this someone you know later today, and see what happens.
A move like this would publicly expose the master to shame and ridicule. You would appear to be meek and servile, obediently waiting for a second blow. But he would be totally helpless. He has three options: to hit you with the palm of his right hand; to use his left hand; or to walk away. To choose any one of these three options means he would lose face.
Verse 40
to sue you: Peasants did not sue one another. Again, this example of public humiliation is one about the abuse of the poor by those with power and privilege. Most peasants only owned the clothes on their backs.
What is being sued for here is not a coat, but a χιτών (chitón), which is an undergarment, usually worn next to the skin. To be sued for my coat would be humiliating enough; to be sued for my underwear would be truly humiliating. I would have nothing left to stand in. Going naked would be a radical way of exposing, laying bare, the shame which allows someone with wealth and privilege to take away the only thing a poor person owns.
Verse 41
forces you to go one mile: In those days, soldiers were allowed to conscript civilians to carry their packs, but only for a mile. However, this was no minor inconvenience for someone who depended on their work to feed and clothe his family. Walking a mile with a heavy pack and then having to walk back again would mean missing that day’s work, that day’s pay, and the food that pay would have paid for.
Offering to go a second mile would relieve another of this unjust burden, but at the same time it would publicly expose the unjust hardship of being forced to go even one mile. Yet it does so in a way that seems to co-operate while at the same time bringing shame and ridicule on the person who is forcing you to bear unfair burdens.
Verse 42
Begging and borrowing. Begging and borrowing are complex social interactions that involve negotiating honour and shame, social respect and status, and money. But Christ’s teaching here is directed to those who have, and not to the have-nots. He is talking not to beggars and borrowers, but to those who are asked for loans and alms.
Christ tells us to treat all who entreat us as if they were our closest family. This surely breaks down the customary social barriers between the haves and the have-nots, it changes the social relationship to one of kinship. But when we come to God, begging and pleading, do we not come as children come to their father?
There are similarly difficult questions as we continue to read from this pssage tomorrow.
‘If anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well’ (Matthew 5: 40) … street art seen at the University of Padua (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Today’s Prayers (Monday 16 June 2025, Trinity Monday):
‘Crossing the Channel’ is the theme this week (15-21 June) in Pray with the World Church, the prayer diary of the Anglican mission agency USPG (United Society Partners in the Gospel). This theme was introduced yesterday with reflections by Bradon Muilenburg, Anglican Refugee Support Lead.
The USPG prayer diary today (Monday 15 June 2025, Trinity Monday) invites us to pray:
Lord, we pray for safe passages so that anyone who is in search of safety can do so with dignity.
The Collect:
Most merciful redeemer,
who gave to your bishop Richard a love of learning,
a zeal for souls and a devotion to the poor:
grant that, encouraged by his example,
we may know you more clearly,
love you more dearly,
and follow you more nearly, day by day,
who with the Father and the Holy Spirit are alive and reign,
one God, now and for ever.
The Post Communion Prayer:
God, shepherd of your people,
whose servant Richard revealed the loving service of Christ
in his ministry as a pastor of your people:
by this eucharist in which we share
awaken within us the love of Christ
and keep us faithful to our Christian calling;
through him who laid down his life for us,
but is alive and reigns with you, now and for ever.
Yesterday’s Reflection
Continued Tomorrow
‘Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you’ (Matthew 5: 42) … ‘Christ the Beggar’ … a sculpture by Timothy Schmalz on the steps of Santo Spirito Hospital near the Vatican (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Scripture quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible: Anglicised Edition copyright © 1989, 1995, National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide. http://nrsvbibles.org
Patrick Comerford
We are in Ordinary Time and the week began yesterday with Trinity Sunday (15 June 2025); in many places today is also Trinity Monday. The calendar of the Church of England in Common Worship today remembers Richard (1253), Bishop of Chichester, and Joseph Butler (1752), Bishop of Durham, Philosopher.
But, before today begins, I am taking some quiet time this morning to give thanks, to reflect, to pray and to read in these ways:
1, reading today’s Gospel reading;
2, a short reflection;
3, a prayer from the USPG prayer diary;
4, the Collects and Post-Communion prayer of the day.
‘You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I say to you …’ (Matthew 5: 38-39) … street art in Dublin (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Matthew 5: 38-42 (NRSVA):
[Jesus said:] 38 ‘You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” 39 But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; 40 and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; 41 and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. 42 Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.’
‘But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also’ (Matthew 5: 39) … street art in Plaza de la Judería in Malaga (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Today’s Reflection:
The Gospel reading for the Eucharist this morning (Matthew 5: 38-42) continues our readings from the Sermon on the Mount, and our Gospel readings have often been misused and misinterpreted.
The suggestion, ‘Do not resist an evildoer,’ is in danger of being used to turn someone into a doormat, to tolerate domestic violence or to forgive constant physical or psychological abuse, to keep people from walking away from abuse, resisting oppression or even turning to revolution.
Verse 39
The translation, ‘Do not resist an evildoer,’ fails to convey the full meaning of the underlying Greek. The word ἀνθίστημι (antheestimee) speaks of setting oneself against something, withstanding, resisting or opposing it. But it might better be translated as, ‘Do not violently resist an evildoer.’ The teaching here is primarily about nonviolence, but it is not about acquiescence to evil.
In fact, Christ then goes on immediately to offer three clear examples (verses 39-41) of how to nonviolently resist an evildoer – in fact, how to publicly shame and mock an evildoer.
These passages are tragically misinterpreted because we have forgotten the original society in which Jesus gave these teachings. When Christ says, ‘If anyone …,’ he and his listeners knew instantly who that ‘anyone’ was. He describes three types of insulting and humiliating behaviour: slapping someone on the right cheek (verse 39), suing them in court for their personal goods (verse 40), and forcing them to go a mile (verse 41). These are not the kind of things anyone, just anyone, could do. They are the kind of things only a privileged few could do – and did – to the sort of people who were in the crowd listening to Christ that day.
So, let’s look at each of these in turn
Verse 39
Slapping the right cheek: This was done by masters to their servants and slaves, and it was always done by hitting with the back of the right hand across the right cheek. The blow was about asserting status and power over the other person. This is not about random violence or fighting among friends or enemies. It is about asserting rank, privilege and power.
In order to preserve one’s honour – to preserve one’s public standing – it is crucial everything must be done according to the socially accepted protocols. The slave must obediently stand facing the master without external coercion. The master must strike only the right cheek; and only with the back of the right hand. Any variation on this would show that he was not in control; it would be a public loss of face.
Now imagine your boss has just slapped you on your right cheek; without saying a word, you then silently turn your head to expose your left cheek. It appears that you are becoming doubly subservient; doubly accepting his authority over you. But in this one movement you have made him powerless.
Turning your head hides your right cheek and presents your left cheek. But the angle of your head is such that the master can see, but cannot strike your left cheek with the back of his right hand. Try to mimic this someone you know later today, and see what happens.
A move like this would publicly expose the master to shame and ridicule. You would appear to be meek and servile, obediently waiting for a second blow. But he would be totally helpless. He has three options: to hit you with the palm of his right hand; to use his left hand; or to walk away. To choose any one of these three options means he would lose face.
Verse 40
to sue you: Peasants did not sue one another. Again, this example of public humiliation is one about the abuse of the poor by those with power and privilege. Most peasants only owned the clothes on their backs.
What is being sued for here is not a coat, but a χιτών (chitón), which is an undergarment, usually worn next to the skin. To be sued for my coat would be humiliating enough; to be sued for my underwear would be truly humiliating. I would have nothing left to stand in. Going naked would be a radical way of exposing, laying bare, the shame which allows someone with wealth and privilege to take away the only thing a poor person owns.
Verse 41
forces you to go one mile: In those days, soldiers were allowed to conscript civilians to carry their packs, but only for a mile. However, this was no minor inconvenience for someone who depended on their work to feed and clothe his family. Walking a mile with a heavy pack and then having to walk back again would mean missing that day’s work, that day’s pay, and the food that pay would have paid for.
Offering to go a second mile would relieve another of this unjust burden, but at the same time it would publicly expose the unjust hardship of being forced to go even one mile. Yet it does so in a way that seems to co-operate while at the same time bringing shame and ridicule on the person who is forcing you to bear unfair burdens.
Verse 42
Begging and borrowing. Begging and borrowing are complex social interactions that involve negotiating honour and shame, social respect and status, and money. But Christ’s teaching here is directed to those who have, and not to the have-nots. He is talking not to beggars and borrowers, but to those who are asked for loans and alms.
Christ tells us to treat all who entreat us as if they were our closest family. This surely breaks down the customary social barriers between the haves and the have-nots, it changes the social relationship to one of kinship. But when we come to God, begging and pleading, do we not come as children come to their father?
There are similarly difficult questions as we continue to read from this pssage tomorrow.
‘If anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well’ (Matthew 5: 40) … street art seen at the University of Padua (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Today’s Prayers (Monday 16 June 2025, Trinity Monday):
‘Crossing the Channel’ is the theme this week (15-21 June) in Pray with the World Church, the prayer diary of the Anglican mission agency USPG (United Society Partners in the Gospel). This theme was introduced yesterday with reflections by Bradon Muilenburg, Anglican Refugee Support Lead.
The USPG prayer diary today (Monday 15 June 2025, Trinity Monday) invites us to pray:
Lord, we pray for safe passages so that anyone who is in search of safety can do so with dignity.
The Collect:
Most merciful redeemer,
who gave to your bishop Richard a love of learning,
a zeal for souls and a devotion to the poor:
grant that, encouraged by his example,
we may know you more clearly,
love you more dearly,
and follow you more nearly, day by day,
who with the Father and the Holy Spirit are alive and reign,
one God, now and for ever.
The Post Communion Prayer:
God, shepherd of your people,
whose servant Richard revealed the loving service of Christ
in his ministry as a pastor of your people:
by this eucharist in which we share
awaken within us the love of Christ
and keep us faithful to our Christian calling;
through him who laid down his life for us,
but is alive and reigns with you, now and for ever.
Yesterday’s Reflection
Continued Tomorrow
‘Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you’ (Matthew 5: 42) … ‘Christ the Beggar’ … a sculpture by Timothy Schmalz on the steps of Santo Spirito Hospital near the Vatican (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Scripture quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible: Anglicised Edition copyright © 1989, 1995, National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide. http://nrsvbibles.org
21 April 2025
The death of Pope Francis today:
‘The thing the church needs most
today is the ability to heal wounds’
Pope Francis died in Rome earlier this morning (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Patrick Comerford
Pope Francis died in Rome early this morning, Easter Monday (21 April 2025), at the age of 88, was from a far country. It would be impossible to add to outpourings of grief and tributes that are being paid to him all day since the news was announced.
There are others I know who have met him and who are saying all the things I would like to say myself. It is a symbol of his commitment to ecumenism that he went out of his way to meet King Charles just a few days ago, even though the king’s state visit to the Vatican had been cancelled due to the Pope’s final illness.
And it is indicative of the appalling tasteless and hectoring approach of the Trump/Vance/Musk regime that JD Vance could bully his way into seeing the Pope virtually on his deathbed a day before Pope Francis died. I can just imagine Vance pontificating to the Pope about he thinks it is to be Catholic, and the Pope gently rebuking him, reminding him of what true Christian values actually are, and about the hope and love that are at the heart of the Easter message.
Pope Francis shares a light moment during a visit to All Saints' Anglican Church in Rome
Pope Francis’s papacy was very different from those of his two predecessors, Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. And it would be remiss of me to let this moment pass without saying something about the values that marked his Papacy.
He chose the name Francis after Francis of Assisi and as a reminder to never forget the poor, to protect creation and to seek peace. Throughout this papacy, he was known for his humility, for living simply, for his commitment to social justice and his conservatism on church teachings.
His casual informality was one of his hallmarks. He wore a simple white cassock instead of the red ermine-trimmed cape favoured by previous popes, and wore the same simple iron pectoral cross he wore as Archbishop of Buenos Aires rather than the gold ones that bedecked his predecessors.
Many had feared that the spirit of the reforms and advances made by Pope John XXIII had been reversed by John Paul II and Benedict XVI, but since 2013 Pope Francis has put the Catholic Church back on track, and has admitted that he was ‘completely inspired’ by John XXIII.
His papacy was an attempt to move power from the centre of the church to the margins and the marginalised. Perhaps the single greatest achievement of this papacy has been the synodal process he launched in 2021, trying to return the church away from clericalism and urging priests to become ‘shepherds with the smell of the sheep on them’, grounded in their flock.
He chose to live simply and modestly in the Santa Marta guesthouse at the Vatican rather than in the Papal Palace. But all this made him an outsider in the Vatican, a champion of the marginalised, those on the periphery, and the excluded, and he faced determined internal opposition within the Vatican and within the Curia, which he criticised for abuses, clericalism and careerism.
His style was one of ‘the frayed edges’, allowing for and demanding compassion at all times. ‘Who am I to judge?’ he responded when he was asked in 2013 about the church’s attitude to gay people. ‘If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge?’
Shortly after his election, he declared: ‘The thing the church needs most today is the ability to heal wounds and to warm the hearts of the faithful; it needs nearness, proximity. I see the church as a field hospital after battle. It is useless to ask a seriously injured person if he has high cholesterol and about the level of his blood sugars. You have to heal his wounds. Then we can talk about everything else. Heal the wounds, heal the wounds … And you have to start from the ground up.’
He told victims of a clerical sexual abuse scandal: ‘I ask forgiveness of all those I offended …’
At times, he was messy in his use of language, speaking off-the-cuff and leaving it to his communications staff to clarify later what he meant. But he was never afraid to be wrong, to admit it, and to ask forgiveness, in public.
His encyclical Laudato sí (2015) on care for our common home has made creation and the environment an important agenda item in all theological and ecumenical dialogue.
He had strong views on migration, and one of his first acts as Pope was to visit to the small island of Lampedusa between Italy and Tunisia where thousands of people attempted to enter Europe, many drowning in the Mediterranean during the journey. He condemned global indifference to the plight of migrants and refugees and cast a wreath into the sea in memory of the many people who had drowned trying to reach refuge and safety.
His firm teachings brought him into direct conflict with the Trump regime in Washington and he condemned the forced deportations in a letter to the US Catholic bishops two months ago (February 2025), when he warned that the forceful removal of people purely because of their illegal status deprived them of their inherent dignity and would end badly.
He appeared in his wheelchair yesterday to bless the people gathered in Saint Peter’s Square on Easter Day. He died this morning in the Vatican’s Casa Santa Marta. His appointment of so many cardinals from around the world is going to strongly the election of his successor.
As he would say at the end of his prayers, ‘Good Night and Sleep Well.’
Father John-Paul Sheridan presents a box set of ‘Treasures of Irish Christianity’ to Pope Francis in Rome
Patrick Comerford
Pope Francis died in Rome early this morning, Easter Monday (21 April 2025), at the age of 88, was from a far country. It would be impossible to add to outpourings of grief and tributes that are being paid to him all day since the news was announced.
There are others I know who have met him and who are saying all the things I would like to say myself. It is a symbol of his commitment to ecumenism that he went out of his way to meet King Charles just a few days ago, even though the king’s state visit to the Vatican had been cancelled due to the Pope’s final illness.
And it is indicative of the appalling tasteless and hectoring approach of the Trump/Vance/Musk regime that JD Vance could bully his way into seeing the Pope virtually on his deathbed a day before Pope Francis died. I can just imagine Vance pontificating to the Pope about he thinks it is to be Catholic, and the Pope gently rebuking him, reminding him of what true Christian values actually are, and about the hope and love that are at the heart of the Easter message.
Pope Francis shares a light moment during a visit to All Saints' Anglican Church in Rome
Pope Francis’s papacy was very different from those of his two predecessors, Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. And it would be remiss of me to let this moment pass without saying something about the values that marked his Papacy.
He chose the name Francis after Francis of Assisi and as a reminder to never forget the poor, to protect creation and to seek peace. Throughout this papacy, he was known for his humility, for living simply, for his commitment to social justice and his conservatism on church teachings.
His casual informality was one of his hallmarks. He wore a simple white cassock instead of the red ermine-trimmed cape favoured by previous popes, and wore the same simple iron pectoral cross he wore as Archbishop of Buenos Aires rather than the gold ones that bedecked his predecessors.
Many had feared that the spirit of the reforms and advances made by Pope John XXIII had been reversed by John Paul II and Benedict XVI, but since 2013 Pope Francis has put the Catholic Church back on track, and has admitted that he was ‘completely inspired’ by John XXIII.
His papacy was an attempt to move power from the centre of the church to the margins and the marginalised. Perhaps the single greatest achievement of this papacy has been the synodal process he launched in 2021, trying to return the church away from clericalism and urging priests to become ‘shepherds with the smell of the sheep on them’, grounded in their flock.
He chose to live simply and modestly in the Santa Marta guesthouse at the Vatican rather than in the Papal Palace. But all this made him an outsider in the Vatican, a champion of the marginalised, those on the periphery, and the excluded, and he faced determined internal opposition within the Vatican and within the Curia, which he criticised for abuses, clericalism and careerism.
His style was one of ‘the frayed edges’, allowing for and demanding compassion at all times. ‘Who am I to judge?’ he responded when he was asked in 2013 about the church’s attitude to gay people. ‘If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge?’
Shortly after his election, he declared: ‘The thing the church needs most today is the ability to heal wounds and to warm the hearts of the faithful; it needs nearness, proximity. I see the church as a field hospital after battle. It is useless to ask a seriously injured person if he has high cholesterol and about the level of his blood sugars. You have to heal his wounds. Then we can talk about everything else. Heal the wounds, heal the wounds … And you have to start from the ground up.’
He told victims of a clerical sexual abuse scandal: ‘I ask forgiveness of all those I offended …’
At times, he was messy in his use of language, speaking off-the-cuff and leaving it to his communications staff to clarify later what he meant. But he was never afraid to be wrong, to admit it, and to ask forgiveness, in public.
His encyclical Laudato sí (2015) on care for our common home has made creation and the environment an important agenda item in all theological and ecumenical dialogue.
He had strong views on migration, and one of his first acts as Pope was to visit to the small island of Lampedusa between Italy and Tunisia where thousands of people attempted to enter Europe, many drowning in the Mediterranean during the journey. He condemned global indifference to the plight of migrants and refugees and cast a wreath into the sea in memory of the many people who had drowned trying to reach refuge and safety.
His firm teachings brought him into direct conflict with the Trump regime in Washington and he condemned the forced deportations in a letter to the US Catholic bishops two months ago (February 2025), when he warned that the forceful removal of people purely because of their illegal status deprived them of their inherent dignity and would end badly.
He appeared in his wheelchair yesterday to bless the people gathered in Saint Peter’s Square on Easter Day. He died this morning in the Vatican’s Casa Santa Marta. His appointment of so many cardinals from around the world is going to strongly the election of his successor.
As he would say at the end of his prayers, ‘Good Night and Sleep Well.’
Father John-Paul Sheridan presents a box set of ‘Treasures of Irish Christianity’ to Pope Francis in Rome
08 September 2024
Daily prayer in Ordinary Time 2024:
121, Sunday 8 September 2024,
Trinity XV
‘If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food …' (James 2: 15) … ‘Christ the Beggar’, a sculpture by Timothy Schmalz in Rome (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Patrick Comerford
We are continuing in Ordinary Time in the Church Calendar and today is the Fifteenth Sunday after Trinity (Trinity XV, 8 September 2024). The Calendar of the Church of England in Common Worship also makes provision ‘for pastoral reasons’ for celebrating the Festival of the Blessed Virgin Mary on 8 September.
Later this morning, I am reading one of the lessons at the Parish Eucharist in Saint Mary and Saint Giles Church, Stony Stratford. Before today begins, I am taking some quiet time this morning to give thanks, for reflection, prayer and reading in these ways:
1, today’s Gospel reading;
2, a reflection on the Gospel reading;
3, a prayer from the USPG prayer diary;
4, the Collects and Post-Communion prayer of the day.
‘But you have dishonoured the poor’ (James 2: 6) … a sculpture by Timothy Schmalz on the steps of Santo Spirito Hospital near the Vatican in Rome (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Mark 7: 24-37 (NRSVA):
24 From there he set out and went away to the region of Tyre. He entered a house and did not want anyone to know he was there. Yet he could not escape notice, 25 but a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit immediately heard about him, and she came and bowed down at his feet. 26 Now the woman was a Gentile, of Syrophoenician origin. She begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. 27 He said to her, ‘Let the children be fed first, for it is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.’ 28 But she answered him, ‘Sir, even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.’ 29 Then he said to her, ‘For saying that, you may go – the demon has left your daughter.’ 30 So she went home, found the child lying on the bed, and the demon gone.
31 Then he returned from the region of Tyre, and went by way of Sidon towards the Sea of Galilee, in the region of the Decapolis. 32 They brought to him a deaf man who had an impediment in his speech; and they begged him to lay his hand on him. 33 He took him aside in private, away from the crowd, and put his fingers into his ears, and he spat and touched his tongue. 34 Then looking up to heaven, he sighed and said to him, ‘Ephphatha’, that is, ‘Be opened.’ 35 And immediately his ears were opened, his tongue was released, and he spoke plainly. 36 Then Jesus ordered them to tell no one; but the more he ordered them, the more zealously they proclaimed it. 37 They were astounded beyond measure, saying, ‘He has done everything well; he even makes the deaf to hear and the mute to speak.’
But she answered him, ‘Sir, even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs’ (Mark 7: 28) … part of Rowan Gillespie’s ‘Famine’ memorial on Custom House Quay, Dublin (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Today’s Reflection:
Today is the Feast of the Birth of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The Gospel reading in Orthodox churches today is Luke 1: 39-49, 56, which includes the words of the canticle Magnificat:
My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour,
for he has looked with favour on the lowliness of his servant.
Surely, from now on all generations will call me blessed
In the traditional icon, Saint Anna and Saint Joachim are depicted embracing to indicate the joy of all humanity at this blessed event. The icon and the feast acknowledge a transition from barrenness to life. This foreshadows what is offered through Christ – the transformation from death to eternal life.
The icon and this feast prefigure the Feast of the Nativity of Christ. But there is a stark contrast between her Nativity and his Nativity: he will be born in a cold and hostile setting, while she is born in a safe and comfortable place. Saint Andrew of Crete writes: ‘This day is for us the beginning of all holy days. It is the door to kindness and truth.’
At the Eucharist in Saint Mary and Saint Giles Church, Stony Startford, this morning, the Gospel reading (Mark 7: 24-37) includes two healing stories: the story of the Syrophoenician woman in Tyre who demands healing for her daughter; and the deaf man who is healed in Sidon.
The story of the Syrophoenician woman in Tyre and her daughter is one of my favourite stories in the Gospels, alongside those of the Wedding at Cana (John 2: 1-11), the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4: 5-42) and the Resurrection appearance to Mary Magdalene (see Mark 16: 9 and John 20).
I have reflected often on the Syrophoenician woman and her daughter (Matthew 15: 21-28; Mark 7: 24-37), and I have compared their story with the women in one of the great Greek tragedies, The Phoenician Woman by Euripides.
The version of this episode in Saint Matthew’s was the weekday Lectionary Gospel reading for Holy Communion once again just a month ago (7 August 2024).
However, this morning I have been asked to read the Epistle reading (James 2: 1-10 [11-13] 14-17) at the Parish Eucharist in Saint Mary and Saint Giles Church, Stony Stratford. It has such a powerful and compelling message that I feel it needs no comment or explication:
James 2: 1-10 [11-13] 14-17:
1 My brothers and sisters, do you with your acts of favouritism really believe in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ? 2 For if a person with gold rings and in fine clothes comes into your assembly, and if a poor person in dirty clothes also comes in, 3 and if you take notice of the one wearing the fine clothes and say, ‘Have a seat here, please’, while to the one who is poor you say, ‘Stand there’, or, ‘Sit at my feet’, 4 have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts? 5 Listen, my beloved brothers and sisters. Has not God chosen the poor in the world to be rich in faith and to be heirs of the kingdom that he has promised to those who love him? 6 But you have dishonoured the poor. Is it not the rich who oppress you? Is it not they who drag you into court? 7 Is it not they who blaspheme the excellent name that was invoked over you?
8 You do well if you really fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ 9 But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. [11 For the one who said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’, also said, ‘You shall not murder.’ Now if you do not commit adultery but if you murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For judgement will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgement.]
14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill’, and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? 17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.
‘So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead’ (James 2: 17) … water at a well at Myli restaurant in Platanias, near Rethymnon, Crete (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Today’s Prayers (Sunday 8 September 2024, Trinity XV):
The theme this week in ‘Pray With the World Church,’ the Prayer Diary of the Anglican mission agency USPG (United Society Partners in the Gospel), is ‘What does the holy cross mean to you?’ This theme is introduced today with a reflection by Rachael Anderson, Senior Communications and Engagement Manager, USPG:
Each year, on 14 September, the Church celebrates the Feast of the Holy Cross. Known as ‘Holy Cross Day’ throughout the majority of the Anglican Communion, this major feast of the Church reminds us to boast in nothing ‘except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (Galatians 6: 14).
The cross holds very significant importance for all Christians. It is upon the cross that Jesus was crucified and sacrificed himself for us and as such it is an important symbol – we regularly make the sign of the cross, and many of us bow to the cross in our liturgy.
When you reflect or look at the cross what is it that you think about? I always think about how powerful it is that Jesus died for me, to take away all my sin, and my pain, and in him I am made anew. He made the ultimate sacrifice for me, for you, for all of mankind. God has taken what could be a terrible symbol of death and made it a symbol of love and hope.
Whatever you think about when you look at the cross, it serves as a reminder of the kind of live we are to live as Christians. Christ commands each of his disciples to ‘take up his cross and follow [him]’ (Matthew 16: 24), freeing us to participate in God’s mission in the world, doing the good works he has prepared for us (Ephesians 2: 10).
The USPG Prayer Diary today (Sunday 8 September 2024, Trinity XV) invites us to pray in the words of an Arabic hymn:
Oh, God of peace and safety
Pour your peace on us
Oh, God of peace,
Grant peace in our heart.
The Collect:
God, who in generous mercy sent the Holy Spirit
upon your Church in the burning fire of your love:
grant that your people may be fervent
in the fellowship of the gospel
that, always abiding in you,
they may be found steadfast in faith and active in service;
through Jesus Christ your Son our Lord,
who is alive and reigns with you,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, now and for ever.
The Post Communion Prayer:
Keep, O Lord, your Church, with your perpetual mercy;
and, because without you our human frailty cannot but fall,
keep us ever by your help from all things hurtful,
and lead us to all things profitable to our salvation;
through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Additional Collect:
Lord God,
defend your Church from all false teaching
and give to your people knowledge of your truth,
that we may enjoy eternal life
in Jesus Christ our Lord.
Yesterday’s reflection
Continued tomorrow
The Syro-Phoenician Woman … this morning’s Gospel reading is Mark 7: 24-37 (Icon: Brother Robert Lentz, OFM)
Scripture quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible: Anglicised Edition copyright © 1989, 1995, National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide. http://nrsvbibles.org
A traditional Greek icon of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary … celebrated in the Church Calendar on 8 September
Patrick Comerford
We are continuing in Ordinary Time in the Church Calendar and today is the Fifteenth Sunday after Trinity (Trinity XV, 8 September 2024). The Calendar of the Church of England in Common Worship also makes provision ‘for pastoral reasons’ for celebrating the Festival of the Blessed Virgin Mary on 8 September.
Later this morning, I am reading one of the lessons at the Parish Eucharist in Saint Mary and Saint Giles Church, Stony Stratford. Before today begins, I am taking some quiet time this morning to give thanks, for reflection, prayer and reading in these ways:
1, today’s Gospel reading;
2, a reflection on the Gospel reading;
3, a prayer from the USPG prayer diary;
4, the Collects and Post-Communion prayer of the day.
‘But you have dishonoured the poor’ (James 2: 6) … a sculpture by Timothy Schmalz on the steps of Santo Spirito Hospital near the Vatican in Rome (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Mark 7: 24-37 (NRSVA):
24 From there he set out and went away to the region of Tyre. He entered a house and did not want anyone to know he was there. Yet he could not escape notice, 25 but a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit immediately heard about him, and she came and bowed down at his feet. 26 Now the woman was a Gentile, of Syrophoenician origin. She begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. 27 He said to her, ‘Let the children be fed first, for it is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.’ 28 But she answered him, ‘Sir, even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.’ 29 Then he said to her, ‘For saying that, you may go – the demon has left your daughter.’ 30 So she went home, found the child lying on the bed, and the demon gone.
31 Then he returned from the region of Tyre, and went by way of Sidon towards the Sea of Galilee, in the region of the Decapolis. 32 They brought to him a deaf man who had an impediment in his speech; and they begged him to lay his hand on him. 33 He took him aside in private, away from the crowd, and put his fingers into his ears, and he spat and touched his tongue. 34 Then looking up to heaven, he sighed and said to him, ‘Ephphatha’, that is, ‘Be opened.’ 35 And immediately his ears were opened, his tongue was released, and he spoke plainly. 36 Then Jesus ordered them to tell no one; but the more he ordered them, the more zealously they proclaimed it. 37 They were astounded beyond measure, saying, ‘He has done everything well; he even makes the deaf to hear and the mute to speak.’
But she answered him, ‘Sir, even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs’ (Mark 7: 28) … part of Rowan Gillespie’s ‘Famine’ memorial on Custom House Quay, Dublin (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Today’s Reflection:
Today is the Feast of the Birth of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The Gospel reading in Orthodox churches today is Luke 1: 39-49, 56, which includes the words of the canticle Magnificat:
My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour,
for he has looked with favour on the lowliness of his servant.
Surely, from now on all generations will call me blessed
In the traditional icon, Saint Anna and Saint Joachim are depicted embracing to indicate the joy of all humanity at this blessed event. The icon and the feast acknowledge a transition from barrenness to life. This foreshadows what is offered through Christ – the transformation from death to eternal life.
The icon and this feast prefigure the Feast of the Nativity of Christ. But there is a stark contrast between her Nativity and his Nativity: he will be born in a cold and hostile setting, while she is born in a safe and comfortable place. Saint Andrew of Crete writes: ‘This day is for us the beginning of all holy days. It is the door to kindness and truth.’
At the Eucharist in Saint Mary and Saint Giles Church, Stony Startford, this morning, the Gospel reading (Mark 7: 24-37) includes two healing stories: the story of the Syrophoenician woman in Tyre who demands healing for her daughter; and the deaf man who is healed in Sidon.
The story of the Syrophoenician woman in Tyre and her daughter is one of my favourite stories in the Gospels, alongside those of the Wedding at Cana (John 2: 1-11), the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4: 5-42) and the Resurrection appearance to Mary Magdalene (see Mark 16: 9 and John 20).
I have reflected often on the Syrophoenician woman and her daughter (Matthew 15: 21-28; Mark 7: 24-37), and I have compared their story with the women in one of the great Greek tragedies, The Phoenician Woman by Euripides.
The version of this episode in Saint Matthew’s was the weekday Lectionary Gospel reading for Holy Communion once again just a month ago (7 August 2024).
However, this morning I have been asked to read the Epistle reading (James 2: 1-10 [11-13] 14-17) at the Parish Eucharist in Saint Mary and Saint Giles Church, Stony Stratford. It has such a powerful and compelling message that I feel it needs no comment or explication:
James 2: 1-10 [11-13] 14-17:
1 My brothers and sisters, do you with your acts of favouritism really believe in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ? 2 For if a person with gold rings and in fine clothes comes into your assembly, and if a poor person in dirty clothes also comes in, 3 and if you take notice of the one wearing the fine clothes and say, ‘Have a seat here, please’, while to the one who is poor you say, ‘Stand there’, or, ‘Sit at my feet’, 4 have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts? 5 Listen, my beloved brothers and sisters. Has not God chosen the poor in the world to be rich in faith and to be heirs of the kingdom that he has promised to those who love him? 6 But you have dishonoured the poor. Is it not the rich who oppress you? Is it not they who drag you into court? 7 Is it not they who blaspheme the excellent name that was invoked over you?
8 You do well if you really fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ 9 But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. [11 For the one who said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’, also said, ‘You shall not murder.’ Now if you do not commit adultery but if you murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For judgement will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgement.]
14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill’, and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? 17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.
‘So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead’ (James 2: 17) … water at a well at Myli restaurant in Platanias, near Rethymnon, Crete (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Today’s Prayers (Sunday 8 September 2024, Trinity XV):
The theme this week in ‘Pray With the World Church,’ the Prayer Diary of the Anglican mission agency USPG (United Society Partners in the Gospel), is ‘What does the holy cross mean to you?’ This theme is introduced today with a reflection by Rachael Anderson, Senior Communications and Engagement Manager, USPG:
Each year, on 14 September, the Church celebrates the Feast of the Holy Cross. Known as ‘Holy Cross Day’ throughout the majority of the Anglican Communion, this major feast of the Church reminds us to boast in nothing ‘except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (Galatians 6: 14).
The cross holds very significant importance for all Christians. It is upon the cross that Jesus was crucified and sacrificed himself for us and as such it is an important symbol – we regularly make the sign of the cross, and many of us bow to the cross in our liturgy.
When you reflect or look at the cross what is it that you think about? I always think about how powerful it is that Jesus died for me, to take away all my sin, and my pain, and in him I am made anew. He made the ultimate sacrifice for me, for you, for all of mankind. God has taken what could be a terrible symbol of death and made it a symbol of love and hope.
Whatever you think about when you look at the cross, it serves as a reminder of the kind of live we are to live as Christians. Christ commands each of his disciples to ‘take up his cross and follow [him]’ (Matthew 16: 24), freeing us to participate in God’s mission in the world, doing the good works he has prepared for us (Ephesians 2: 10).
The USPG Prayer Diary today (Sunday 8 September 2024, Trinity XV) invites us to pray in the words of an Arabic hymn:
Oh, God of peace and safety
Pour your peace on us
Oh, God of peace,
Grant peace in our heart.
The Collect:
God, who in generous mercy sent the Holy Spirit
upon your Church in the burning fire of your love:
grant that your people may be fervent
in the fellowship of the gospel
that, always abiding in you,
they may be found steadfast in faith and active in service;
through Jesus Christ your Son our Lord,
who is alive and reigns with you,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, now and for ever.
The Post Communion Prayer:
Keep, O Lord, your Church, with your perpetual mercy;
and, because without you our human frailty cannot but fall,
keep us ever by your help from all things hurtful,
and lead us to all things profitable to our salvation;
through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Additional Collect:
Lord God,
defend your Church from all false teaching
and give to your people knowledge of your truth,
that we may enjoy eternal life
in Jesus Christ our Lord.
Yesterday’s reflection
Continued tomorrow
The Syro-Phoenician Woman … this morning’s Gospel reading is Mark 7: 24-37 (Icon: Brother Robert Lentz, OFM)Scripture quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible: Anglicised Edition copyright © 1989, 1995, National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide. http://nrsvbibles.org
A traditional Greek icon of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary … celebrated in the Church Calendar on 8 September
07 August 2024
The fresco at Frescoes
brings Michelangelo
and the Sistine Chapel
to the streets of Bedford
Michelangelo’s ‘Libyan Sibyl’ has been reproduced on the gable end of Frescoes coffee shop in Bedford (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2024; click on images for full-screen viewing)
Patrick Comerford
Part of Michelangelo’s ‘Libyan Sibyl’ has become an eye-catcher on the gable wall of a café in the centre of Bedford. The fresco at Frescoes in Mill Street is a reproduction of Michelangelo's Libyan Sibyl.
The Libyan Sibyl, named Phemonoe, was the prophetic priestess presiding over the Oracle of Zeus-Ammon at the Siwa Oasis in the Libyan Desert. She is one of the 12 prophetic figures on the ceiling in the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican in 1511 because in classical mythology she foretold the ‘coming of the day when that which is hidden shall be revealed.’
Now the half-mortal, half-divine oracle, who was said to foretell the future, can be seen on the café gable wall on the corner of Mill Street and Howard Street, almost facing the former Howard Chapel and just a few steps away from the Bunyan Meeting Church. She was recreated by the artist Iain Carstairs who painted her using a technique that dates back to ca 1500 BCE.
The fresco was commissioned for the outside wall of the café by then owner of Frecoes, Kevin Kavanagh, who described himself as a ‘bit of an art lover’.
The fresco was created for Frescoes in 2012-2013 by the artist Iain Carstairs and the plasterer Jim Smith. They spent two or three months working from scaffolding on their own version of the masterpiece using pigment paint on lime plaster, a technique that dates back to ancient Greece, ca 1500 BCE.
‘It’s so pleasing to see and it’s prettier than I thought,’ said Iain Carstairs. ‘The most exciting thing is looking out of the window and seeing people’s reaction to it. They seem to connect and react to it.’
‘Painting on lime with pigment paint gives it longevity, which is why you can see works of art around the world which have lasted for hundreds of years,’ he said. ‘The lime plaster mix that you put on first, you could hit it with a sledgehammer and it wouldn’t break.’
The fresco measures about 34 square metres and it took three months to complete. Kevin Kavanagh claimed would ‘last for a thousand years’, saying: ‘The building will fall down before it fades’.
Kevin Kavanagh describes himself as a ‘bit of an art lover’. It cost about £12,000 to complete, and most of that cost came from his own pocket, saying it was his way of ‘adding to the culture of the town’.
Iain Carstairs and Jim Smith began working on their fresco in Bedford on 31 October 2012, 500 years to the day after the unveiling of the ceiling in the Sistine Chapel, and completed their work on 1 January 2013. The artist Iain Carstairs said: ‘I hadn’t realised how tricky it would be but I am very happy with the result and want to do some more.’
The fresco on the gable end of Frescoes measures about 34 sq m (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2024)
‘It’s had a tremendous impact locally and really taken off,’ Kevin Kavanagh said. ‘People have been amazed to see the incredible work that has gone into it and the final result certainly has the wow factor.’
He has now moved on to running Blue Glass wine bar in St Peter’s Street. Since 2021. Frescoes Coffee House has been under the management of Xanthe Jackson, a former employee, who had worked at Frecoes for 16 years.
Xanthe Jackson said at the time: ‘I’ve always loved this work and now I am excited to take on the new challenge of being the owner as we come out of lockdown.’
Frescoes regularly displays pieces from local artists and is a cosy, independent coffee shop spread over three styled rooms in a former bookshop on Mill Street, with a blend of traditional comfort and contemporary décor.
It has a traditional shop front on Mill Street, with a downstairs seating area, an outside dining space on sunny days, and a creaky staircase leading to two rooms each with their own display of original works by an artist in residence. There are regular art and music evenings, including a glass of wine.
And the fresco at Frescoes continues to give people in Bedford an unusual Italian experience, continuing to bring Michelangelo to Mill Street and the Sistine Chapel to the street with the former Howard Chapel.
A plaque on the corner of Mill Street and Howard Street tells the story of the fresco at Frescoes (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2024)
Patrick Comerford
Part of Michelangelo’s ‘Libyan Sibyl’ has become an eye-catcher on the gable wall of a café in the centre of Bedford. The fresco at Frescoes in Mill Street is a reproduction of Michelangelo's Libyan Sibyl.
The Libyan Sibyl, named Phemonoe, was the prophetic priestess presiding over the Oracle of Zeus-Ammon at the Siwa Oasis in the Libyan Desert. She is one of the 12 prophetic figures on the ceiling in the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican in 1511 because in classical mythology she foretold the ‘coming of the day when that which is hidden shall be revealed.’
Now the half-mortal, half-divine oracle, who was said to foretell the future, can be seen on the café gable wall on the corner of Mill Street and Howard Street, almost facing the former Howard Chapel and just a few steps away from the Bunyan Meeting Church. She was recreated by the artist Iain Carstairs who painted her using a technique that dates back to ca 1500 BCE.
The fresco was commissioned for the outside wall of the café by then owner of Frecoes, Kevin Kavanagh, who described himself as a ‘bit of an art lover’.
The fresco was created for Frescoes in 2012-2013 by the artist Iain Carstairs and the plasterer Jim Smith. They spent two or three months working from scaffolding on their own version of the masterpiece using pigment paint on lime plaster, a technique that dates back to ancient Greece, ca 1500 BCE.
‘It’s so pleasing to see and it’s prettier than I thought,’ said Iain Carstairs. ‘The most exciting thing is looking out of the window and seeing people’s reaction to it. They seem to connect and react to it.’
‘Painting on lime with pigment paint gives it longevity, which is why you can see works of art around the world which have lasted for hundreds of years,’ he said. ‘The lime plaster mix that you put on first, you could hit it with a sledgehammer and it wouldn’t break.’
The fresco measures about 34 square metres and it took three months to complete. Kevin Kavanagh claimed would ‘last for a thousand years’, saying: ‘The building will fall down before it fades’.
Kevin Kavanagh describes himself as a ‘bit of an art lover’. It cost about £12,000 to complete, and most of that cost came from his own pocket, saying it was his way of ‘adding to the culture of the town’.
Iain Carstairs and Jim Smith began working on their fresco in Bedford on 31 October 2012, 500 years to the day after the unveiling of the ceiling in the Sistine Chapel, and completed their work on 1 January 2013. The artist Iain Carstairs said: ‘I hadn’t realised how tricky it would be but I am very happy with the result and want to do some more.’
The fresco on the gable end of Frescoes measures about 34 sq m (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2024)
‘It’s had a tremendous impact locally and really taken off,’ Kevin Kavanagh said. ‘People have been amazed to see the incredible work that has gone into it and the final result certainly has the wow factor.’
He has now moved on to running Blue Glass wine bar in St Peter’s Street. Since 2021. Frescoes Coffee House has been under the management of Xanthe Jackson, a former employee, who had worked at Frecoes for 16 years.
Xanthe Jackson said at the time: ‘I’ve always loved this work and now I am excited to take on the new challenge of being the owner as we come out of lockdown.’
Frescoes regularly displays pieces from local artists and is a cosy, independent coffee shop spread over three styled rooms in a former bookshop on Mill Street, with a blend of traditional comfort and contemporary décor.
It has a traditional shop front on Mill Street, with a downstairs seating area, an outside dining space on sunny days, and a creaky staircase leading to two rooms each with their own display of original works by an artist in residence. There are regular art and music evenings, including a glass of wine.
And the fresco at Frescoes continues to give people in Bedford an unusual Italian experience, continuing to bring Michelangelo to Mill Street and the Sistine Chapel to the street with the former Howard Chapel.
A plaque on the corner of Mill Street and Howard Street tells the story of the fresco at Frescoes (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2024)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)






















