Praxiteles

More on Christian aesthetics:

Sacred Mysteries: The love poetry of John of the Cross
Christopher Howse discusses the sketch that inspired Salvador Dalí to paint Scotland’s best-loved picture
[align=center:1azwpptz]_____________[/align:1azwpptz]

Kelvingrove Museum in Glasgow has just lent its most popular painting, Salvador Dalí’s Christ of St John of the Cross to Atlanta for a few months. His idea of picturing Christ on the cross from above came from a sketch made by St John of the Cross in the 1570s. Dalí’s is a flawless idealisation, but St John’s (below) shows Christ dead and wounded.
The Carmelite friar St John of the Cross (1542-1591) had some training as a carpenter, but he was not a practised pictorial artist. His sketch was meant as an aide mémoire, not a work of art. It will, none the less, seem to some that his sketch, for all its awkwardness, possesses something that Dalí has lost
A vital point about the saint’s artistic sensibility is made by Peter Tyler in an impressive short book (St John of the Cross, Continuum, £14.99). For all his renaissance humanistic education, he says, the pictures that “spoke” to John “are not distinguished by 16th century technical mastery, and are often rather workaday examples of late medieval Spanish piety”.
We should, John advised in The Ascent of Mount Carmel “pay heed not to the feelings of delight or sweetness, not to the images, but to the feelings of love” that are caused by these images.
John’s well-integrated conviction was that Christians who are committed to a life of prayer should not rely on emotional experiences, let alone phenomena such as visions. Peter Tyler notes that while St Teresa of Avila, John’s friend and co-reformer, often wrote of joys, savours and delights in the spiritual life, John’s favourite words were beauty and beautiful. For him, beauty was not just visual pleasure, but took in notions of truth and clarity, which he derived from his studies of Thomas Aquinas at Salamanca university.
Yet John was no puritan suppressor of aesthetic experience. Indeed he is recognised as a leading lyric poet of the Spanish language. And his metaphor is erotic love.
In his great poems such as “En una noche oscura” he takes sexual love between a woman and a man and uses it as a language for relations between the human soul and God. If this seems surprising in a celibate friar in the era of the Spanish Inquisition, it had precedents, the model being the biblical Song of Songs. Spiritual writers such as St Bernard wrote lengthy commentaries on the Songs of Songs precisely because its erotic conventions applied so well to God and the soul.
Later writers in the Carmelite tradition drew heavily on St John of the Cross. Pope John Paul II had discovered this spirituality in the austerities of forced labour and hunger in Poland during the Second World War. As pope he worked out a theology of the body that relied on St John of the Cross in taking conjugal love as the model of relations between God and human beings.
A connected insight that Peter Tyler emphasises is the importance to St John of the Cross of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. He rejects a remark by Thomas Merton, the 20th-century monastic writer, that “Zen is nothing but John of the Cross without the Christian vocabulary”. The nada of St John is not the “nothing” of Buddhism. God is not “nothing” to John, but everything, though feelings, imagination and intellect are utterly insufficient to contain him.
Moreover John’s prayer is personal – between his own person and the persons of God the Holy Trinity. The efforts of the human being at prayer are nothing, nada; God does the work. The person who acts in prayer (by the will of God the Father and the work of the Holy Spirit) is God the Son, who became a man, Jesus Christ.
Jesus’s last words recorded by St John the Evangelist (who writes of him as “glorified” at the moment of death) are Consummatum est (in the Latin with which St John of the Cross was familiar) – “It is accomplished.” John’s image of Jesus dead on the cross represents his work of atonement as the mediator who unites God and man.

Daily Telegraph, 30 July 2010

Telegraph electronic version with comments:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherhowse/7919575/Sacred-Mysteries-The-love-poetry-of-John-of-the-Cross.html

On St. John of the Cross:

http://www.ourgardenofcarmel.org/stjohn.html

A little canonical something for the Liturgical Kommune Eins to chew on during their spare time:

Der Status von „Summorum Pontificum“ in Ordnung und Gesetzgebung zur Liturgie
10. 8. 2010

Das Apostolische Schreiben Summorum Pontificum, das am 7. Juli 2007 von Seiner Heiligkeit, Papst Benedikt XVI., in der Form eines Motu Proprio veröffentlicht wurde, stellt einen bedeutenden Beitrag zur Umsetzung der Lehre über die heilige Liturgie durch das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil dar. In der unmittelbaren Nachkonzilszeit wurde diese Lehre häufig zum Opfer einer abwegigen Hermeneutik der Diskontinuität, wodurch leicht der falsche Eindruck entstand, daß die vom Konzil geforderte liturgische Reform mehr einen Bruch als eine Entwicklung des höchsten Ausdrucks des Lebens der Kirche bedeutete.

Diejenigen, die dieser falschen Hermeneutik anhingen, hoben tatsächlich hervor, daß es kein Verhältnis der Kontinuität zwischen dem Missale Romanum des seligen Papstes Johannes XXIII. und dem Missale Romanum des Dieners Gottes Papst Paul VI. gäbe.

Tatsächlich lehrt die Liturgiekonstitution Sacrosanctum Concilium jedoch die organische Einheit der heiligen Liturgie, die erhabenster Ausdruck des Lebens Christi in seiner Kirche ist. Deshalb kann sie niemals einem radikalen Bruch unterworfen werden, ohne daß es sich dabei um einen Verrat an der sakramentalen Gegenwart Christi und an seinem Wirken im liturgischen Leben der Kirche handelte, der größten geistlichen Schaden seines ganzen mystischen Leibes, aber auch jedes einzelnen seiner Glieder zur Folge hätte. Der damalige Kardinal Joseph Ratzinger hat diese Wahrheit in klarer und überzeugender Weise in einem Vortrag anläßlich der Liturgischen Tagung in Fontgombault, im Juli 2001 dargelegt:

„Das Vorwort des Missale Pauls VI. sagt ausdrücklich, daß dies ein Missale derselben Kirche ist, das sich in ihre Kontinuität einfügt. Und um zu unterstreichen, daß es keinen essentiellen Bruch gibt, daß Kontinuität und Identität der Kirche bestehen, scheint es mir unabdingbar, die Möglichkeit aufrechtzuerhalten, gemäß dem alten Missale zu zelebrieren, als Zeichen der fortdauernden Identität der Kirche. Das ist für mich der fundamentale Grund: Das, was bis 1969 die Liturgie der Kirche war, die heiligste Sache für uns alle, kann nicht nach 1969 – mit einem unglaublichen Positivismus – zu einer völlig unakzeptablen Sache werden. Wenn wir glaubwürdig bleiben wollen, um dieses Schlagwort der Modernität zu gebrauchen, ist es absolut notwendig anzuerkennen, daß das, was vor 1969 fundamental war, es auch danach bleibt: Es ist dieselbe Heiligkeit, dieselbe Liturgie.“

Summorum Pontificum ermöglicht deshalb, in Übereinstimmung mit der Wahrheit von der Identität und Kontinuität der heiligen Liturgie in ihren historischen Formen, eine gegenseitige Bereicherung zwischen den Missalia des seligen Papstes Johannes XXIII. und des Dieners Gottes Papst Paul VI., indem es die beiden Formen des einen Römischen Ritus für die ganze Kirche vorlegt.

Damit nun das Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum all das erreichen kann, was der Höchste Hirte der Kirche durch seine Veröffentlichung beabsichtigt, ist es ganz wesentlich, den kanonischen Status und den Platz des Motu Proprio innerhalb des Gesamtes der liturgischen Ordnung und Gesetzgebung der Kirche klar zu verstehen. Zu diesem Zweck hat Dr. Gero P. Weishaupt eine sorgfältige kanonistische Studie von Summorum Pontificum unternommen, deren Ergebnis uns nun in diesem Band vorliegt.

In seinem Vorwort erklärt Weishaupt seine Absicht, durch den vorliegenden Kommentar zum richtigen Verständnis und zur korrekten Umsetzung der bedeutenden Gesetzgebung des Motu Proprio beizutragen. Er bietet uns damit in aller Bescheidenheit eine unverzichtbare Hilfe für die “liturgische Versöhnung” innerhalb der Kirche, nach der Intention des Höchsten Hirten und Gesetzgebers der Kirche.

Im ersten Kapitel seines Kommentars stellt Weishaupt den kanonischen Status von Summorum Pontificum dar. Es handelt sich um einen neuen legislativen Text, der in der gewöhnlichen Form päpstlicher Gesetzgebung, einem Apostolischen Schreiben, motu proprio, d. h. auf Grund der eigenen Initiative des Römischen Pontifex, erlassen wurde.

Als Akt universeller Gesetzgebung ist dieser für die gesamte Kirche weltweit verbindlich. Summorum Pontificum ist damit nicht Ausdruck eines Gunsterweises gegenüber irgendwelchen Personen oder Gruppen, sondern eine Gesetzgebung zum Zweck der Wahrung und Beförderung des Lebens des ganzen mystischen Leibes Christi und der höchsten Ausdrucksform dieses Lebens, nämlich der heiligen Liturgie. Der gesamten Gemeinschaft der Kirche ist damit die Verpflichtung auferlegt, ihre liturgische Tradition zu bewahren und zu pflegen, um so einerseits die Rechte derjenigen Einzelpersonen und Gruppen zu schützen, die sich der Liturgie, die nun als “Außerordentliche Form des Römischen Ritus” bezeichnet wird, geistlich verbunden wissen, um aber andererseits ebenso ihr liturgisches Leben durch die rechtmäßige Feier beider Formen des Römischen Ritus zu bereichern. Kurz: Summorum Pontificum bestimmt die universale Disziplin für die Verwendung der Außerordentlichen Form des Römischen Ritus, in Übereinstimmung mit der Lehre des Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzils, das im Rahmen der mehr als 2000-jährigen Tradition der Kirche, d.h. im Sinne einer “Hermeneutik der Kontinuität” zu verstehen ist, wie sie Papst Benedikt der XVI. in seiner Ansprache an die Kurie vom 22. Dezember 2005 dargelegt hat.

Aufbauend auf dem Werk anderer Kanonisten legt Weishaupt überzeugende Argumente dafür vor, daß das Missale Romanum von 1962 niemals abgeschafft worden war, wie Papst Benedikt XVI. dies ebenso klar bestätigt hat. Der Kommentar zeigt auf, daß die Apostolische Konstitution Missale Romanum vom 3. April 1969 und die ihr folgende liturgische Gesetzgebung keine ausdrückliche Klausel enthalten, welche die Unterdrückung des Missale Romanum von 1962 vorgesehen hätte. Durch die allgemeine Erlaubnis der Verwendung des Missale Romanum von 1962 in Summorum Pontificum, erklärt Papst Benedikt XVI. für die gesamte Kirche, daß de iure beide Formen, die Form des Meßbuches des seligen Papstes Johannes XXIII. und die Form, die sich im Meßbuch des Dieners Gottes Papst Paul VI. findet, in der Kirche Bestand haben. Die Gesetzgebung durch Summorum Pontificum ist daher der klare Ausdruck der von der Liturgie- konstitution Sacrosanctum Concilium des Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzils geforderten Reform.

Im zweiten Kapitel seines Kommentars beantwortet Weishaupt eine Reihe praktischer Fragen, die sich hinsichtlich der Umsetzung von Summorum Pontificum stellen und sich aus jüngeren Änderungen der Disziplin der Feier der Sakramente ergeben, wie bspw. die Fragen bezüglich weiblicher Meßdiener oder Laien, die den Dienst von Lektoren oder außerordentlichen Spendern der Hl. Kommunion versehen. Zur Klärung dieser Fragen wendet der Kommentar zutreffend zwei allgemeine kanonistische Prinzipien an.

Das erste Prinzip fordert, daß die liturgischen Normen, die 1962 in Kraft waren, für die Zelebration der Außerordentlichen Form des Römischen Ritus sorgfältig zu beachten sind, denn diese Normen schützen die Integrität des Römischen Ritus, wie er im Meßbuch des seligen Johannes XXIII. enthalten ist. Das zweite Prinzip besagt, daß die nachfolgende liturgische Disziplin nur dann auch in die Außerordentliche Form einzuführen ist, wenn diese Disziplin ein Recht der Gläubigen berührt, das sich unmittelbar aus dem Taufsakrament ergibt und dem ewigen Heil ihrer Seelen dient.

Die Anwendung dieser beiden Prinzipien auf die genannten Fälle führt zur Einsicht, daß weder der Altardienst von Personen weiblichen Geschlechts noch die Ausübung der Laiendienste des Lektors oder des außerordentlichen Spenders der Heiligen Kommunion zu den fundamentalen Rechten der Getauften gehören. Deshalb sind diese jüngeren Entwicklungen aus Respekt vor der Unversehrtheit der liturgischen Disziplin, wie sie im Missale Romanum von 1962 enthalten ist, nicht in die Außerordentliche Form des Römischen Ritus einzuführen. Der Kommentar legt hier eindrucksvoll dar, daß die gegenseitige Bereicherung beider Formen des Römischen Ritus nur dann möglich ist, wenn die den beiden Formen jeweils eigentümliche Disziplin entsprechend sorgfältige Beachtung findet.

Im dritten Kapitel stellt Weishaupt im Anschluß an Papst Benedikts XVI. Schreiben an die Bischöfe, das die Promulgation von Summorum Pontificum begleitete, Überlegungen hinsichtlich der Möglichkeiten einer weitergehenden Reform des nachkonziliaren Missales an. In diesem letzten Kapitel des Werks folgt der Kommentar dem Gedanken der „Reform der Reform“, dem der damalige Kardinal Joseph Ratzinger, besonders in dem bedeutsamen liturgischen Vortrag in der Abtei von Fontgombault im Juli 2001 Ausdruck verliehen hat.

Der Kommentar ist gründlich belegt und berücksichtigt die neueste kanonistische Literatur. Er ist daher ein wichtiges und verläßliches Instrument für das korrekte Verständnis und die Umsetzung der in Summorum Pontificum enthaltenen bedeutenden kanonischen Disziplin. Weishaupts kanonistische Analyse berücksichtigt zu Recht mit großer Aufmerksamkeit die Intention des Gesetzgebers, die sich klar und deutlich im Schreiben an die Bischöfe und in den reichhaltigen Schriften zu liturgischen Fragen des damaligen Kardinal Joseph Ratzinger findet.

Im Namen all derjenigen, die von den guten Früchten dieser wichtigen Studie zehren werden, bringe ich dem Autor gegenüber gerne meinen herzlichen Dank dafür zum Ausdruck, daß er mit großer Kenntnis und Sorgfalt das Apostolische Schreiben in der Form eines Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum vorgestellt sowie seinen kirchenrechtlichen Rang und seinen Kontext in der liturgischen Ordnung der universalen Kirche dargelegt hat. Gerne hoffe ich, daß dieser Kommentar bald in andere Sprachen übersetzt werden wird, damit dieser wichtige Beitrag zur Umsetzung der liturgischen Disziplin der Kirche und besonders zu Summorum Pontificum dadurch zahlreichen Gläubigen zugänglich gemacht wird, vor allem jedoch den Bischöfen und den Priestern, ihren Mitarbeitern, welche die vornehmste Verantwortung für die rechte Ordnung des höchsten und vollkommensten Ausdrucks des Lebens der Kirche, nämlich der heiligen Liturgie, haben.

Möge uns der wertvolle Beitrag von Dr. Gero P. Weishaupt zum Studium der kirchenrechtlichen Ordnung der heiligen Liturgie helfen, die tiefe Weisheit der Worte Papst Benedikts XVI. immer besser zu verstehen, mit welchen er die in Summorum Pontificum enthaltene Disziplin der universalen Kirche anvertraut hat:

„Es gibt keinen Widerspruch zwischen der einen und der anderen Ausgabe des Missale Romanum. In der Liturgiegeschichte gibt es Wachstum und Fortschritt, aber keinen Bruch. Was früheren Generationen heilig war, bleibt auch uns heilig und groß; es kann nicht plötzlich rundum verboten oder gar schädlich sein. Es tut uns allen gut, die Reichtümer zu wahren, die im Glauben und Beten der Kirche gewachsen sind und ihnen ihren rechten Ort zu geben.“

+ Raymond Leo Burke

Emeritierter Erzbischof von Saint Louis
Präfekt des Höchsten Gerichtshofes der Apostolischen Signatur
Rom, am Hochfest des Heiligsten Herzens Jesu, dem 11. Juni 2010

St. Colman’s Catedral, Cobh, Co. Cork

Index of works in the Irish Architectural Archive pertaining to the mosaic work of Mayer of Munich:
http://www.dia.ie/architects/view/3426#tab_works

The company had offices in Munich, London and New york. Unfortunately, almost all of the records of the Munich office were destroyed when a bomb hit them in 1942; the archive of the London office is missing since the closure of the London office in 1915 due to the outbreak of the First World War; and the whereabouts of the archive of the New York office is also unknown since it too close in 1915.

St. Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh, Co. Cork

Index of material in Irish Architectural Archive re works by the firm of Earley and Powell, Upper Camden Street, Dublin:

http://www.dia.ie/architects/view/1736#tab_works

This company executed G. C. Ashlin’s design for the High Altar in Cobh Cathedral. Many of Ashlin’s drawings are extant and also in the Irish Architectural Archive having been deposited there by the firm of Ashlin and Colman.

St. Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh, Co. Cork

The index of works on the data base relative to Patrick Scannell:

http://www.dia.ie/architects/view/4760#tab_works

Going through this list it is appalling to see the destruction wroughthon this sculptor’s work by the Liturgical Kommune Eins.

From the data base of the Irish Arcitectural Archive:

Works executed by the firm Ashlin and Coleman from 1903 to c. 1950:

http://www.dia.ie/architects/view/1123#tab_works

A recent notice from the Ecclesiological Society:

The Ecclesiological Society
About our conferences . . . and this year’s . . .

Conference in 2010: Saturday 2nd October, 10.15 – 5.15 in central London (address below)

Our conference in 2010 is on Medieval English Wall Paintings. All are welcome.
You can book using the application form here, posting it to us, or by emailing conference@ecclsoc.org

SPEAKERS
Roger Rosewell: Introduction to medieval English wall paintings
Miriam Gill: Seven Deadly Sins and Seven Works of Mercy: wall paintings and the catechism
Anne Marshall: The Gossip
Jo Mattingly: Wall paintings: the view from Cornwall (preliminary title)
Bob Heath-Whyte: The chancel wall paintings at St. Mary’s Church, Chalgrove, Oxon
Ellie Pridgeon: St Christopher in medieval wall painting: image and function

The entry price includes all refreshments, a good hot lunch, and a glass of wine at the end. Tickets for members of the Society are £42.50; for non-members £48;
for undergraduate and post-graduate students, £35.

The conference will be at the St Alban’s Centre, Baldwins Gardens, London EC1N 7AB

Exploring the source influences of the liturgical Drang to abolish “barriers”, “structures” and other “divisive forces” in liturgical space and practice:

No. 1: Berlin-Charlottenburg – Kommune I

Kommune 1 or K1 was the first politically-motivated commune in Germany. It was created on January 12, 1967, in West Berlin and finally dissolved in November 1969.

Kommune 1 developed from the extraparliamentary opposition of the German student movement of the 1960s. It was intended as a counter-model against the small middle-class family, as a reaction against a society that the commune thought was very conservative.

They were first located (from February 19, 1967, until the beginning of March, 1967) in the empty apartment of the author, Hans Magnus Enzensberger, in Fregestraße 19, as well as in the studio apartment of the author, Uwe Johnson, who was staying in the USA, at Niedstraße 14 in the Berlin district of Friedenau. After Enzensberger’s return from a long study trip to Moscow, they left his apartment and occupied the home of Johnson at Stierstraße 3 for a short time and then finally moved to the second floor of the back of a tenement house in Stephanstraße 60 in the Stephankiez area of the Berlin district of Moabit.[1]

Contents [hide]
1 Emergence
2 The First Phase: Bizarre acts of provocation
2.1 The “Pudding Assassination”
2.2 The visit of the Shah and the K1 photograph
2.3 The “Arsonist’s Lawsuit”
2.4 Reactions
3 The Second Phase: Sex, drugs and Uschi Obermaier
4 The end of Kommune 1 and its legacy
5 See also
6 References
7 Literature
8 External links

[edit] Emergence
Members of the “Munich Subversive Action” (such as Dieter Kunzelmann) and of the Berlin Sozialistischer Deutscher Studentenbund (“SDS”) (such as Rudi Dutschke and Bernd Rabehl) discussed how to break from what they considered to be narrow-minded and bourgeois concepts.

Dieter Kunzelmann had the idea of creating a commune. They decided to try a life of “those passionately interested in themselves”. Kunzelmann soon moved to Berlin. In Berlin, the SDS had its first “commune working group”, which advanced the following ideas:

Fascism develops from the nuclear family. It is the smallest cell of the state from whose oppressive character all institutions are derived.
Men and women live in dependence on each other so that neither could develop freely as people.
This cell (that is, the small family) had to be shattered.
When it was proposed that this theory should be realized as the practice of a life as a commune, many SDS members left, including Rudi Dutschke and Bernd Rabehl, who did not want to give up their marriages and lifestyles. In the end, nine men and women, as well as a child, moved into the empty apartment of Hans Magnus Enzensberger and the studio apartment of the author Uwe Johnson in Berlin-Friedenau, who was staying in New York City at the time, on February 19, 1967. After Enzensberger’s return from an extended study trip to Moscow, the communards left and occupied the main residence of Johnson in the nearby Stierstraße 3. They called themselves Kommune 1.

The early communards included Dagrun Enzensberger (divorced wife of Hans Magnus Enzensberger), Tanaquil Enzensberger (nine years old at that time, daughter of Hans Magnus Enzensberger), Ulrich Enzensberger (Hans Magnus Enzensberger’s brother), Dieter Kunzelmann, Detlef Michel (until March 25, 1967), Volker Gebbert, Hans-Joachim Hameister, Dorothea Ridder, (“the iron Dorothee”), Dagmar Seehuber and Fritz Teufel. Rainer Langhans joined in March 1967.[2] At times, other people also lived in the premises of Kommune 1, such as Dagmar von Doetinchem and Gertrud Hemmer („Agathe“).

The communards first tried to tell each other their own biographical identity, to break the old certainties. They were very different from each other. Correspondingly, the roles each of them played were soon different. Kunzelmann was the “patriarch” and made sure everyone knew it. His definition of the goals of the commune were based on his time as a “situationist” and in the “Subversive Action”. He was therefore in favor of getting rid of all securities, even financial ones, which is why he scorned study grants, for example. He wanted to abolish any property, any private sphere. And he was against the principle of work, but for the principle of fun or pleasure. Everyone could and should do what he wanted, as long as it happened where everyone could see it.

Langhans, Teufel and the others wore long hair, beaded necklaces, army jackets or Mao suits at the urging of the women of the commune. Soon, they were paid for interviews and photographs. A sign hung plainly in the hallway of their apartment: “First pay up, then speak”.

[edit] The First Phase: Bizarre acts of provocation
During its entire existence, Kommune 1 was infamous for its bizarre staged events that fluctuated between satire and provocation. These events served as inspiration for the “Sponti” movement and other leftist groups.

[edit] The “Pudding Assassination”
As the domestic commune life was too boring, the communards decided to turn their internal experience into actions.

The first of these was the “pudding assassination” of US Vice-President Hubert Humphrey who was scheduled to visit Berlin. On the evening of April 2, 1967, the communards met in Johnson’s apartment with about 20 other people whom they knew from demonstrations. Kunzelmann presented his plan of throwing smoke bombs in the direction of the Vice President on the occasion of the state visit. None of the others besides Langhans wanted to participate.[3]

Police files indicate that the planned attack was revealed by a secret service agent, since eleven students were arrested by officials of Division I (Political Police) on April 5, 1967. They were supposed to have met under conspiratorial conditions and planned attacks against the life or health of Hubert Humphrey by means of bombs, plastic bags filled with unknown chemicals, or with other dangerous tools, such as stones.

Those arrested were Ulrich Enzensberger, Volker Gebbert, Klaus Gilgenmann, Hans-Joachim Hameister, Wulf Krause, Dieter Kunzelmann, Rainer Langhans and Fritz Teufel.[4] The tabloid Bild’s headline was “Humphrey to be assassinated”, the weekly Zeit spoke of “Eleven little Oswalds”. Even the New York Times featured a report on the dangerous plan of eight communards to attack the Vice-President with pudding, yoghurt, and flour. Because of this bad publicity, Uwe Johnson hastily asked his friend and neighbor Günter Grass to evict the students from his apartment. The next day, the communards were released and gave their first press conference – they had become celebrities, while the press and police officials had lost face in the public eye. The publisher Axel Springer henceforth called the members of Kommune 1 “communards of horror”.

The commune moved to an apartment in an old building on Kaiser-Friedrich-Straße on Stuttgarter Platz in the district of Berlin-Charlottenburg and later to Stephanstraße 60 in Berlin-Moabit. Hardly a week passed without the communards staging some kind of satiric provocation somewhere in Berlin, which made headlines in the press. In one of them, the commune climbed up the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gedächtniskirche to throw down hundreds of Little Red books from above.

[edit] The visit of the Shah and the K1 photograph
During a demonstration in front of the Opera against the visit of the Shah of Iran on June 2, 1967 (the death of Benno Ohnesorg), Fritz Teufel was arrested and accused of treason. It was not until December that he was released, after he and many students with him had begun a hunger strike. In the streets, sympathizers held wild demonstrations, chanting “Freedom for Fritz Teufel” and “Drive the devil out of Moabit!” (Moabit being Berlin’s prison and Teufel being German for devil).

During Teufel’s absence from Kommune 1, an infamous phototograph of the communards’ naked behinds against a wall was displayed with the headline: Das Private ist politisch! (“The personal is political”)

[edit] The “Arsonist’s Lawsuit”
On June 6, 1967, the “Arsonist’s Lawsuit” was filed against Langhans and Teufel because of flyers calling for arson against department stores, which read, “Holt euch das knisternde Vietnam-Gefühl, das wir auch hier nicht missen wollen!” (“Catch that burning Vietnam feeling that we would not want to miss at home!”) The court ultimately ruled in favor of Langhans and Teufel, however. They later told the story of the lawsuit in their book, Klau Mich (“Steal Me”), which rose to cult status.

[edit] Reactions
The hedonistic attitude of the communards, who did only what they felt like doing, not only polarized the bourgeoisie but also polarized the political Left.

The SDS especially disliked the provocative activities of the K1. The provocative flyers of the K1 (“Water cannons are paper tigers”) that were signed with the acronym SDS, were a source of continual irritation. Among other things, the communards were accused of having no political interest, but merely indulging in egotism. Hence in May 1967, the SDS expelled the “revolutionary rowdies” (Bild Zeitung).

In the weekly newspaper Zeit, Klaus Hartung wrote: “Scarcely any political theory was more successful than that according to which revolutionaries have to revolutionize, according to which there will be no change in the society without a change in everyday life.”

Kommune 1 developed into a kind of refuge for alternative thinkers for problems of all kinds; appeals for help arrived daily. The house was under a veritable siege by friends and groupies who worshipped Teufel and Langhans. Because of the crowd of women, especially caused by Teufel, he was expelled from the commune. He moved into a Munich commune and later belonged to the Movement 2 June.

[edit] The Second Phase: Sex, drugs and Uschi Obermaier
By the end of the 1960s, the societal climate had changed. In the late summer of 1968, the commune moved into a deserted factory on Stephanstraße in order to reorient. This second phase of Kommune 1 was characterized by sex, music, and drugs.

On September 21, 1968, the commune went to the International Song Days in Essen, the Federal Republic’s first underground festival.[5] There, Langhans met and fell in love with Uschi Obermaier, a model from Munich. She lived with the Munich-based music commune Amon Düül, but soon she moved in with the communards of Kommune 1, who shared one bedroom. Soon, the press called Langhans and Obermaier the “best-looking couple of the APO”.

The politization of the private sphere and the fact that Langhans and Obermaier spoke openly to the media about their relationship, about jealousy and about “pleasure machines” constituted the next breaking of social taboos, ushering in the sexual revolution.[dubious – discuss] Later, John Lennon and Yoko Ono and others followed their example.[citation needed]

All of a sudden, the commune was receiving visitors from all over the world, among them Jimi Hendrix, who turned up one morning in the bedroom of Kommune 1. Obermaier fell in love with him.[citation needed]

Her modeling fees rose sharply, she was given a lead role in Rudolf Thome’s cult movie Rote Sonne (1969). (Rote Sonne at IMDB). (Red Sun), and her photographs were all over posters and magazine covers. Rumor has it[weasel words][citation needed] that the magazine Stern paid her 20,000 Deutschmark (the price of a Porsche 911 at the time) for an interview and nude photos of Obermaier.

[edit] The end of Kommune 1 and its legacy
Eventually, the energy of Kommune 1 was spent. Kunzelmann’s addiction to heroin worsened and the second communard was expelled from the commune. (It is said[who?] that the other members of the commune left of their own will). Now and then, the Munich women’s communes appeared.

In November 1969, a gang of Rockers raided those who remained and devastated the rooms. The remaining occupants lost their belief in the future of Kommune 1 and they dispersed. Obermaier and Langhans went to Munich.

A table from one of the rooms of the Kommune 1 was bought by the Green Party politician Hans-Christian Ströbele. During meetings around that same table, the newspaper die tageszeitung and the German Chaos Computer Club were founded. The table was stolen in 1990, and there is some speculation[by whom?] as to its whereabouts today.

[edit] See also
Amon Düül
Uschi Obermaier
Chaos Computer Club
Manfred Grashof
Autonomism
[edit] References
^ Ulrich Enzensberger, Die Jahre der Kommune I, pp. 105, 108
^ Ulrich Enzensberger, Die Jahre der Kommune I, p. 105
^ The danger of it being turned into a bloodbath by the US security forces was too great.
^ Ulrich Enzensberger, Die Jahre der Kommune I, p. 121
^ Wagner, Christoph (2003). “Deutschlands Woodstock” (in German). http://www.folker.de/200306/02songtage.htm. Retrieved 2007-12-29.
[edit] Literature
Enzensberger, Ulrich. 2004. Die Jahre der Kommune I. Berlin 1967-1969. Köln: Kiepenheuer & Witsch. ISBN 3-462-03413-8
Fahlenbrach, Kathrin. 2004. The Aesthetics of Protest in the Media of 1968 in Germany (conference paper). Proceedings, IX International Congress of the International Society for the Empirical Study of Literature, 2004. Available from: http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/igel/igel2004/Proceedings/Fahlenbrach.pdf (PDF)
Rabehl, Bernd. 2003. Die Provokationselite: Aufbruch und Scheitern der subversiven Rebellion in den sechziger Jahren. (Teil 2: Die Revolte in der Revolte: Die Kommune 1.) Available from: http://people.freenet.de/visionen/Provo2.htm
Martin Klimke, Joachim Scharloth (eds.).2007. 1968. Ein Handbuch zur Kultur- und Mediengeschichte der Studentenbewegung. Stuttgart: Metzler. ISBN 3-476-02066-5
Wolfgang Dreßen, Dieter Kunzelmann, Eckhard Siepmann (publ.): Das Nilpferd des höllischen Urwalds. Situationisten – Gruppe Spur – Kommune I. Anabas-Verlag, Gießen 1991.
Rainer Langhans, Fritz Teufel: Klau mich. StPO der Kommune I. Edition Voltaire, Frankfurt am Main and Berlin 1968 (Series: Voltaire Handbuch 2), Reprint (without pornographic insert): Trikont Verlag, Munich 1977; Rixdorfer Verlagsanstalt, Berlin undated [1982]
Christa Ritter, Rainer Langhans: Herz der Revolte. Die Kommune 1 von 1967 bis 1969. Hannibal Verlag, 2005, ISBN 3-85445-258-6.
Peter Szondi: Aufforderung zur Brandstiftung. Ein Gutachten im Prozeß Langhans / Teufel. in: Der Monat, Berlin, 19th year, issue 7, 1967, p. 24-29, also printed in: Peter Szondi: Ãœber eine “Freie (d. h. freie) Universität”. Stellungnahmen eines Philologen. Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 1973 (Series: es 620)
[edit] External links
Kommune 1 in Berlin (in German)

This article incorporates information from this version of the equivalent article on the German Wikipedia.
Retrieved from “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kommune_1”

Deptartment challenges Ballyroan church revamp

EXTENSIVE renovation plans for Ballyroan’s Catholic church have had to be changed following the intervention of a Government department which said some of the original proposals would cause “irreversible damage”.

In the past week Laois County Council gave the conditional goahead to refuburbish St Patrick’s Church, a building which is a protected building and dates back to the 1840.

Under plans submitted to the council, the refurbishment would have included a range of work to the inside and outside of the building.

The refurbishment planned ranged from the repointing of the belltower, a new altar, changes to the gallery, restoration of the stain glass windows and relocating the baptisimal font.

However, the Department of the Environment raised serious concerns over the project early last month when Minister John Gormley’s officials contacted county hall’s planners.

“The Department is concerned at several aspects of this proposed development which, in our opinion, do not represent best conservation practice and which would involve unnecessary loss and disturbance of historic fabric,” said a letter the Department.

Minister Gormley’s staff are also concerned that the potential impact of the refurbishment in that it inadequately described as the work may cause future damage to the building if incorrectly undertaken.

The Dept said the proposed cleaning and repointing of the stonework could cause “irreversible damage” if undertake incorrectly. Issues were also raised over the need for Damp Proof Coursing with the Dept saying that such works can be “very destructive”.

Concerns were also raised at plans for the stained glass.

The Dept said removal of such panels would contravene conservation principles and potentially damage the historic panels.

The replacement of storm glazing with new storm glazing was referred to as a “discredited practice.”

Problems were also highlighted with plans to lower the chancel floor and relocate mosaic flooring.

The Dept said this should not happen because the said such work would cause “significant and unacceptable damage”.

The Dept’s Development Application Unit Manager recommended that county hall should only grant permission if a number of conditions were met.

It said detailed conservation report on all work on the church should be prepared and approved by county hall before any work is carried out.

Laois County Council set a number of conditions on the project proceeding.

It said the precise details of the cleaning and repointing work must have the agreement of the council and meet best practice.

A similar condition was imposed in relation to damp coarsing.

The council allowed the existing storm glazing from the stained glazed windows but could to be removed but ordered that the proposed storm glazing would not be permitted.

Alternative proposals should be agreed with the council.

The council also ordered that a detailed statement and method statement be prepared by a qualified conservation architect which would have the written consent of the council.

Fr Gerard Ahern, PP, declined to comment until the planning process is finalised.

Rosslyn Chapel, Midlothian, Scotland