Honours reflect our shifting values

Always wise, Andy. Except for the potential eye strain! I would concur that a person's life is best received and given simply as gift. When we honour we dignify. And perhaps the people who receive Honours recognition feel that the honour is almost greater than the pleasure. Still, I respect the point made in the article about energetic institutions with an eye to the common good. And I certainly agree about the frailty of the people within those institutions. It is something we all have in common.

One of the great Commonwealth schools has the motto 'Palmam qui meruit ferat' which translates 'Let him who merited the palm bear it'. That is one justification for an honours system and for those who accept them. On the other hand you have the late J G Ballard, a highly intelligent and moral man, who refused a knighthood for his science fiction writing on the grounds that the whole system by which honours were granted was inherently corrupt and he would not condone it. Our society has changed but our concept of honours is still very stuck in the Elizabethan Age. Elizabeth 1 was notoriously parsimonious and honours cost very little to bestow. I think our modern Australian honours are a bit like that. I know a man who got a lower grade gong for voluntary work. It was a bit of an Elizabethan honour: 'Well done old chap' and nothing substantial. Our society is a little more worldly wise than it was in the 1960s and institutions no longer have their former cachet. We respect people for their deeds, rather than their rank. Hence almost universal respect for Fr Bob Maguire of Melbourne. I don't think society is less coherent than in the 1960s. Just different.

On honours, Evelyn Waugh writes memorably in the introduction to his life of the Jesuit martyr Edmund Campion: "Tobie Matthew (a contemporary of Campion's rapidly advanced in Elizabeth I's favour and court) died full of honours . . . There but for the grace of God went Edmund Campion." - Thanks for your thoughts here, Andrew. I strongly support, in particular, your final paragraph.

A very balanced and wise view of the situation.

It is not surprising that individuals are being honoured rather than institutions. This is the consequence of the many commissions and inquiries that we have seen over the last decade revealing that many institutions worldwide have not acted as the general public would have expected. These institutions have been given the chance to resurrect themselves during and following inquiries but have failed dismally. There has never been any doubt that many good people work within these institutions and the plaudits are now going to them rather than to the vehicle that has provided the avenue for good works. The fact that the wheels have fallen off the vehicle in the matter of trust is what we are now rightly experiencing, especially in relation to churches. Rather than this now lack of trust freeing the churches from acting as unquestioned authorities, their continued example of defending the institution and its laws in the courts, even after an admission of guilt, will no longer be accepted by the public. The institutions with power, apparently emanating from a higher authority, continue the mass control of their members as the most effective way of protecting themselves, even when horrific crimes continue to be revealed.

John RD raises the case of St Edmund Campion, who was a young man of considerable promise and who even caught the eye of the young Queen Elizabeth and who would not have gained just honours, but their fruit, which was preferment. His becoming a Catholic and thus leaving the Church of England was seen as an act of treachery. Loyalty to the C of E was required by Law. Those who did not conform were fined. Catholics were seen as potential subversives. Campion; like Dietrich Bonhoeffer; Beyers Naude and several others would've claimed their loyalty was not just due to the State, but to a Higher Cause. I think most of us would praise them for this and wonder what we would've done in their position. To my mind a lot of honours are given to people who are just doing their job. It is sometimes expected, if you fulfil a certain position in the public service or armed forces for a period, you will get the appropriate gong. Some honours, such as the Victoria Cross or the Star of Courage (formerly the George Cross) are granted for exceptional service beyond ordinary expectations. These are granted very rarely and their recipients held in real respect by the community at large.

“our lives are best received and given simply as gift without need for institutional reward” Christian theology holds that God doesn’t need our thanks; Christians thank him because that which is in them needs to, and the only fitting thanks is, in compliance with the Great Commission, the public display of an institutional one, best visible in the form of Mass or even a Sunday service devoid of Real Presence. The visible institution of Sunday worship, not good works on the other six days, is the definitive signalling that God exists and is due praise. Community honours can be seen as civilian eucharist in which those honoured don’t need our praise but that we others for our own spirits do need to affirm what they stood for at the time of the praiseworthy action, which, as a people, we can’t do unless we can see the various lights of merit that were moved from the bushel to the hill.