Sacrosanctum Concilium - as seen through strange (bishop's) eyes

In the diocese of Arundel and Brighton, they are celebrating their diocesan golden jubilee.

As part of that process,  they have started local study groups in the parishes, looking at the documents of the Second Vatican Council.

I think that a great idea: the documents are the real teaching of the Council, and are sadly neglected (and often misrepresented).

On the web, you can see the resources they have produced for Study Group Leaders and for Participants .

However, I was slightly less impressed once I started to read some of the material.

Below, for example, is part of Bishop Conry’s introductory talk on the Sacred Liturgy.

I started to embolden and intalicise phrases that seem to me to speak more of Bishop Conry’s personal views (I had almost said prejudices) than of anything that the Council actually said.  However, that was clearly going to result in the whole extract being in bold and italic, so I desisted. I have, however, added a comment or two of my own in red.

Seriously, as an introduction to the changes to the liturgy suggested by Sacrosanctum Concilium this is a very poor piece of work.

--

“What the reforms of the Council, especially in the first document on the liturgy, have tried to do, is restore what many refer to as ‘the noble simplicity of the Roman Rite.’  

This was necessary because, over the centuries, and especially after the Protestant Reformation, many of the elements of the Mass had become obscured. Much of this was a consequence of the continued use of Latin, which served to alienate and distance people from the action of the Mass. 

(This is riddled with oddities: it is not clear how Latin resulted in elements being obscured, very few changes were made after the Protestant Reformation - Trent codified existing practice. The opinion about alienation has nothing to do with anything in Sacrosanctum Concilium.  One would scarcely gather, from this or anything the good bishop said, that Sacrosanctum Concilium ordered that Latin be retained as the principal language of the liturgy in the Roman Rite.)

While the Protestant reformers wanted the scriptures and liturgy to be made accessible to the people in their own language, the Catholic Church rejected this as more or less Protestant heresy, and so the separation of priest and people grew even more marked. 

("and so"?  Again, this is the bishop’s view, nothing to do with anything to be found in Sacrosanctum Concilium.)

The priest had his back to the people and many of the prayers of the Mass were said in silence or in a whisper. The people had to be told that the moment of consecration was approaching to (sic) that they could at least see the consecrated host being elevated, and so a bell was rung. One of our great liturgical scholars, Dom Gregory Dix, refers to the change in the Mass by the Middle Ages as “declining into a mere focus for the subjective devotion of each separate worshipper in the isolation of his own mind.” Gone was any sense of a corporate, community act of worship.

(More somewhat stale opinions that have nothing to do with anything to be found in Sacrosanctum Concilium.)

[snip]

When people talk of ‘traditional’ celebration of Mass, they often refer to the rites introduced in the 16th century, after the Protestant Reformation and the Council of Trent. 

(What rites are these? As I understand it, Trent codified what preceded it; it did not introduce new rites: it would have considered such an approach gravely problematic.  Only  in the wake of the Second Vatican Council was such an extraordinary thing attempted - and again it is hard to see anything in Sacrosanctum Concilium which justifies the wholesale re-writing of the Sacred Liturgy.)

What the Vatican Council has asked us to do is go back and re-discover more authentically where our liturgical traditions begin. It asks us to find again the simple beauty of gifts of bread and wine being brought to the altar from the people; of the people being asked to join in the great prayer of thanksgiving over those gifts, said by the priest, and giving their consent with the great ‘Amen’ – one of the responses that really should be sung – and it asks us to see that the bread is broken before it is shared, as Christ took the bread and broke it.

(I can’t find any of that in my copy of Sacrosanctum Concilium.  If that is a summary of the bishop’s sacramental theology of the Mass, then we are in dire straits indeed.)

--

It is a great shame that this worthy initiative is undermined by such poor implementation.

Pray for our bishops and for the Universal Church.

Incentivising the LCP

I have just been reading that hospitals are given financial rewards if they meet their targets for the numbers (or more accurately per centage) of patients who are on the LCP when they die.

That of course raises some serious questions.

According to the Daily Mail, Professor Patrick Pullicino, said: 'Given the fact that the diagnosis of impending death is such a subjective one, putting a financial incentive into the mix is really not a good idea and it could sway the decision-making process.' 

Quite.

The Liverpool Care Pathway

I know there are strong feelings on both sides of the debate about the LCP (about which I have blogged previously, here).

It is a complex issue, and I know people of good will who are strongly supportive of the LCP.   However, I also know two of the signatories of this letter, and when they are worried, I am worried.  They raise serious concerns, which should be properly addressed. 

-- 

Commentary on the Statement supporting the Liverpool Care Pathway

21 October 2012

The Statement supporting the Liverpool Care Pathway from the National End of Life Programme was published under multiple signatories. We have a number of serious reservations and questions about the working of the Liverpool Care Pathway.

1 The statement says, “it is not always easy to tell whether someone is very close to death”.

The fact is that there is no scientific evidence to support the diagnosis of impending death and there are no published criteria that allow this diagnosis to be made in an evidence-based manner. This is even more true of non cancer conditions. This diagnosis is a prediction, which is at best an educated guess. Predictions have been shown to be often in serious error.

There is no evidence that the diagnosis of impending death can be improved by using “the most senior doctor available “, and an actual misdiagnosis of impending death could result in a wrongful death.

2 “The Liverpool Care Pathway …is not a treatment”.

This statement belies what actually happens once a patient is signed up onto the LCP. The fact that morphine, midozelam and glycopyrrolate are prescribed makes the LCP a treatment protocol.

3 “The Liverpool Care Pathway …is…a framework for good practice.”

In the twenty-first century all good clinical practice is evidence based. Good clinical practice has always traditionally involved a close doctor-patient relationship and the management of symptoms in the best interest of the patient, as and when they arise. The LCP is more than a framework. It is a pathway that takes the patient in the direction of the outcome presumed by the diagnosis of impending death. The pathway leads to a suspension of evidence based practice and the normal doctor-patient relationship.

4 “The Liverpool Care Pathway does not….hasten death.”

It is self evident that stopping fluids whilst giving narcotics and sedatives hastens death. According to the National Audit 2010-2011, fluids were continued in only 16% of patients and none had fluids started.

The median time to death on the Liverpool Care Pathway is now 29 hours. Statistics show that even patients with terminal cancer and a poor prognosis may survive months or more if not put on the Liverpool Care Pathway.

Your statement fails to mention the relief of symptoms at all. We think this is a serious omission. The question of consent is not mentioned either.

If as you say, the LCP does not replace “clinical judgement”, and is a “framework for good”, why is it not endorsed by 28% of senior healthcare professionals? (National Audit 2010-2011)

Patients should receive an individual treatment plan according to best evidence based medicine. They should not be deprived of consciousness, but receive such treatment that is aimed at relieving all their symptoms including thirst. Nothing should be done which intentionally hastens death. An individual care plan based on best evidence is preferable to a rigid pathway.

Signed 

Professor P Pullicino

Prof of Neurosciences

Mr J Bogle 

Chairman Catholic Union of Great Britain

Dr P Howard

Chairman Joint Medico Ethical Committee Catholic Union

Dr R Hardie

President Catholic Medical Association

Dr A Cole

Chairman Medical Ethics Alliance 

Dr M Knowles

Secretary First Do No Harm

Mrs N McCarthy

Catholic Nurses Association

Ms T Lynch

Chairman Nurses Opposed to Euthanasia

Mr R Balfour

President Doctors who Respect Human Life

h/t John Smeaton

A reply to my MP

In the next instalment of this exciting saga (for previous episodes, see here and here) I have written back to my MP, as follows:

Thank you for your reply: I do appreciate the time and thought that went into it.

However, I have a number of questions and concerns that remain unanswered.

1   You refer to ‘equal civil marriage.’  However, as I wrote previously:

‘Much has been made of the alleged distinction between Civil and Religious Marriage, and it has been asserted that this applies only to Civil Marriage, leaving Religious Marriage untouched. That is a very curious claim, as there is no such distinction in English Law. There are civil or religious ceremonies, but only one institution of Marriage.’

Am I right or wrong in believing that there is no distinction in law between civil and religious marriage?  If I am right, is it proposed to introduce such a distinction?

2   Based on that understanding, I continued: ‘ It is very hard to see any protection that could be offered to religious organisations who refuse same-sex weddings if challenged at the European level, once same-sex marriage is legalised.’

I think you were seeking to address that when you wrote:

“That said, the Conservative Party are not proposing to make anybody do anything that goes against their conscience. Religious organisations will not be forced to host same-sex marriages. Indeed, current proposals would make it illegal for any religious organisation to conduct a same-sex marriage in a place of worship.”

However, that does not really address my concerns about European jurisdiction, nor those raised at point 5 in my original letter: ‘Once the state believes it can re-define marriage, what is to stop it being re-defined further? That is not a fanciful question, as we are already witnessing cases in Brazil, the Netherlands and Canada striving to legitimise polygamy. ‘

Likewise my concerns at point 6: ‘We are already seeing hotel and B&B owners being prosecuted for following their consciences as Christians, and upholding standards which were, until very recently, the law of the land. Legal advice from senior QCs indicates that we will soon find that Christians who believe in marriage as always heretofore defined are thereby barred from many occupations and organisations, including education, many public services, and so on. Likewise Churches will be obliged to let their halls be used for ceremonies which are against their beliefs, or not let them be used at all; and so on.” For although current proposals do not intend to do so, they lay the ground for progressive legal challenges and of course further legislation which will undoubtedly take us further and further down that path, once the very meaning of marriage, which we have inherited as part of our civilisation, has been altered.

3   You also wrote:

“The Prime Minister, as you are aware supports equal civil marriage, on the grounds of the importance of commitment in strengthening our society.”

However, there is no evidence that introducing same sex marriage will in fact have that result.  Such evidence as there is (which is admittedly scanty, given the novelty of this phenomenon) seems to point the other way; or is their evidence of which I am unaware?

4   You also wrote:

“But the Government has rightly consulted widely on this issue before making any changes to the current position.”

However, the consultation was deliberately framed as a consultation about how, not whether, to introduce this radical change to the institution of marriage, which rather undermines your point. It was made clear that the government wished to present the change as a fait accompli. Nonetheless, it does seem clear that large numbers of people are indicating their concerns, and I trust these will be heeded.

5   You also wrote: 

“The consultation included a question asking people whether they agree or disagree with enabling all couples, regardless of their gender, to have a civil marriage ceremony.”

Given the lack of any legal meaning to the concept of ‘civil marriage’ that is a rather misleading way of framing the issue.  A more honest question would have been: ‘Do you agree that marriage should be re-defined to include partnerships between people of the same sex?’

6   I note that points 1, 2 and 4 of my letter were not addressed in your reply: I hope and trust that is because you are thinking further about them.

I hope that once you have concluded your deliberations, you will let me and others know your decision and voting intentions.  Unlike you, I am not at all reassured by the government’s claim that ‘this proposal will have no effect on religious marriage’ as I think that claim has no credibility whatsoever.

Thank you for taking the time to read and reply to my earlier letter: it is no part of my intention to bombard you with correspondence, but this issue is simply too important for me to remain silent.


--

As Patti F. pointed out in a comment on his reply to me, it is also important to meet MPs and lobby them (as Laurence and others did theirs) 

Sitting on the fence

My MP has just replied to the letter I wrote recently.

Here is what he has to say:

Thank you for contacting me about the consultation on equal civil marriage. I understand that this is a contentious issue and one that you feel very strongly about and I have read your concerns carefully. Civil marriage is an issue that, on reflection, I personally would have preferred not to have been raised at this time.

That said, the Conservative Party are not proposing to make anybody do anything that goes against their conscience. Religious organisations will not be forced to host same-sex marriages. Indeed, current proposals would make it illegal for any religious organisation to conduct a same-sex marriage in a place of worship.

The Prime Minister, as you are aware supports equal civil marriage, on the grounds of the importance of commitment in strengthening our society. But the Government has rightly consulted widely on this issue before making any changes to the current position.

The consultation included a question asking people whether they agree or disagree with enabling all couples, regardless of their gender, to have a civil marriage ceremony.

I will be reviewing the outcome of the consultation closely before coming to my own conclusions on this issue although I have to say that I am much reassured by the Government’s insistence that this proposal will have no effect on religious marriage.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me.

With best wishes,

--

It seems to me that he is sitting on the fence.

It also seems to me that he failed to address most of the issues raised in my letter.

I will write again - and keep you in the picture.

I will also encourage others to write: a heavy mailbag may pull him off the fence in the desired direction...

A Tricky Question

The other night on Twitter, an intelligent and benign atheist was commenting on how the image of the Catholic Church which came across in the social (and I suspect other) media was predominantly concerned with right to life issues (where we take a stance with which she disagrees). What she had not seen anywhere online was Catholics’ commitment to social justice.

I recognise what she describes, and think there are various reasons for it. 

Partly, of course, it depends what one means by social justice. If one means a left-wing agit-prop, then clearly that is something I have no time for.  I do not believe in political solutions to spiritual problems, in the salvation of souls through socialism (or capitalism, come to that).

However, if one means a concern to feed the hungry, comfort the sick, and visit the imprisoned, then that is certainly at the heart of practical Catholicism.

It is also at the heart of most parishes I have ever had anything to do with.  At home, the Society of St Vincent de Paul, for example, organises these corporal works of mercy; worldwide, the Catholic Church is a major provider of famine relief, development, healthcare, and education.

So why don’t we blog and tweet about this stuff?

As I said, I think there are various reasons. One is that we are under orders not to boast of our charity: not to let our left hand know what our right is doing (Matt 6:3).

Another is that it isn’t newsworthy - just as saying that all planes landed safely at Heathrow today isn’t newsworthy.  It is just part of normality. Of course we share with those less fortunate than ourselves: it is part of who we are as a community.

When people say the Church only ever talks about sex, they clearly don't go to Mass.  I rarely, if ever, hear sexual morality preached about. I frequently hear sermons on the need to feed the poor, house the homeless, comfort the sick and so on.

But when a priest or bishop says such a thing, the media, understandably, ignore it. It is not news. 'Bishop says we should feed the poor! Shock Horror!' won't sell many papers.  It is only when they are counter-cultural that they are all over the news.

Also, so much is done on a very local and intimate scale: it is almost private. Anna and a friend, for example, run the local Life Baby Store.  They collect unwanted baby kit (prams, buggies, highchairs, cots and so on that have been outgrown) and distribute them to new mothers who need them. It’s not a big, glamorous, or spectacular operation; they just get on with it, and local mothers are grateful.  And occasionally they are asked why they are doing it by a curious mum, and they explain it’s about solidarity and supporting mums under pressure.

Likewise, the local SVP organises visits to the housebound and those in homes and hospitals.  Again, it’s not a big, glamorous, or spectacular operation; they just get on with it, and people are grateful.

Similarly, the parish has a box at the back of Church to collect imperishable food.  We liaise with the Salvation Army, and it is distributed by them to hungry people. Yet again, it’s not a big, glamorous, or spectacular operation; they just get on with it, and people are grateful.

And I suspect that is typical of nearly every parish in the country.  Quiet and nearly invisible - and unsung.

Which is probably as it should be; except the risk is that people who don’t see that side of the life of the Church are getting a distorted view; not just because of people like me, blogging about the difficult bits, but also because the media, naturally enough, pick up on any bad news relating to the Church; and also because many lapsed Catholics seem to need to attack the Church in their comedy shows, novels, plays, soap operas and so on, as a way of processing their own issues.

The result of all that is that people may have a completely distorted understanding of the Church, which may impede them hearing the Good News, and make it harder for them to recognise, in the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ.  We risk hiding our light under a bushel...

So how do we correct that?  How do we get the other side of the Church, the active works of mercy that are such a living and positive feature of her, across to people - without boasting?

BT on the skins

It has happened again.

Someone has expressed surprise, if not incredulity, that I used to play drums in a band.  I can't think what it is about my online image that makes this seem so implausible.

So here is my drumming history, for the record.

I first played with a band that practised but never actually played any gigs (we're talking 6th form here, and we were all just learning).

Our set list (if one can name it so, given we never played a set) featured such songs as Wild Thing (the Troggs) which about tells you the standard.

Off to University, and I joined a rather intense band playing its own material: we did one gig and then gave up.

Then I formed another band with a friend, who was probably a better drummer than I was, but who wanted to pose with a guitar.  We played fast dance music, largely with an RnB feel.  Our set ranged from Johnnie be Good, In the Midnight Hour and Shakin' All Over, via Slow Down, I'm a Believer, Neighbours and Route 66 to Dancing the Night Away,  Hangin' Around, Teenage Kicks and Mystery Dance - as well as a few numbers of our own.

As a college band, we were lucky enough to play a number of college balls, supporting people as diverse as Chris Barber, Bad Manners and George Melly. The Student paper reviewed us favourably, though noting that 'the only jewel of the band was [my friend's name] who strutted the stage as if he could really play that guitar.'  He thought that a great (and fair) review.

I've played in a few bands since, but never really reached the same giddy heights.

My most recent public gig was several years ago when Ant was in Junior School and they did a production of the Jungle Book.  That was great music to play: Bear Necessities and all that.

Since then, the most I've done is scratch bands for fun: one time Anna and the kids were away, I invited a bundle of friends up for the weekend and we treated the village to 48 hours of Rock and Roll practice.  Some locals still talk to me...

A while back, we put a band together for a friend's 50th.  He'd always wanted to sing and front a band, so we worked hard to put a set together for his 50th party - which went very well.  As a present we bought him a day in a recording studio and cut a CD with four or five of his favourite songs on it.  When I tell you they were things like Bryan Ferry's Oh Yeah, you will see how the mighty have fallen.

So next time I mention my drumming past in passing, keep your incredulity to yourself...

A letter to my MP

Here's a letter I've sent to my MP: I will let you know of any response in due course.

Feel free to use any or all of it when writing to yours.

--

I am writing to ask you to oppose the current proposals to redefine marriage.

There are several reasons for this.

1 Safeguarding the institution of marriage
Marriage is foundational to civilised society, and has been as far back as we can trace. It is reckless to change such a fundamental building block without good reason, and without looking at the potential consequences.

One of the claims made by those in favour of gay marriage is that allowing gay marriage changes nothing for heterosexual marriage.

That is quite simply not true.  Changing the meaning of marriage necessarily includes:

Re-defining it to mean that it is not intrinsically about procreation;
Re-defining it to mean that it is not the union of one man and one woman;
Re-defining consummation (something the government’s proposals have fudged in a shameful fashion) and which raises serious questions about whether consummation will be defined in the same or different ways for lesbians, homosexual men and heterosexual couples (if the same, that radically changes the meaning of heterosexual marriage; if different, that makes a mockery of the equality principle that is allegedly behind the proposal).

It also creates a cultural context within which people will have very different understandings of marriage than heretofore, thus making it much harder for young people to find others with the same (traditional) view of marriage as they may hold, and rendering normal heterosexual marriage harder to contract and sustain.

2 The Protection of Children
Traditionally, marriage has been essentially about the conceiving and raising of children in the context of a loving relationship between a man and a woman. The evidence is clear that children do best when raised in a stable family by their mother and their father.  

Same sex marriage is an unproven experiment.  What little evidence there is suggests that its introduction undermines marriage (eg in Spain and the Netherlands, where marriage rates across the whole population have fallen since its introduction).

The stakes are very high when we are dealing with the future generation: to take such a risk there should be a serious good that is pursued...

3 The Purpose of the Change
It is widely touted that the purpose of this change is equality.  That is clearly not the case.  Same-sex couples already have equality, via civil partnerships.  They gain no legal right under the marriage proposals which they do not already enjoy.  The real purpose of this change is social engineering: that is to bestow state (and it is hoped public) approval on same-sex relationships.  The question that has to be asked is whether that is the correct role of the state.  In fact, this is clearly a change being led by a small but vociferous minority trying to lead public opinion in a particular direction.  It seems to me to be dishonest to pretend it is anything else.  

I also fear that the reason the Conservative Party has jumped on the bandwagon has more to do with massaging the Tory brand than any conservative principles.  But in practice, it won’t mean gay people are more likely to vote Tory; it will mean that many Tories are unlikely to vote at all, as there will be no party which represents their views and philosophy.

4 The Alleged Distinction between Civil and Religious Marriage
Much has been made of the alleged distinction between Civil and Religious Marriage, and it has been asserted that this applies only to Civil Marriage, leaving Religious Marriage untouched.  That is a very curious claim, as there is no such distinction in English Law.  There are civil or religious ceremonies, but only one institution of Marriage.  It is very hard to see any protection that could be offered to religious organisations who refuse same-sex weddings if challenged at the European level, once same-sex marriage is legalised.

5 The Slippery Slope
Once the state believes it can re-define marriage, what is to stop it being re-defined further? That is not a fanciful question, as we are already witnessing cases in Brazil, the Netherlands and Canada striving to legitimise polygamy.

6 Freedom of Conscience
We are already seeing hotel and B&B owners being prosecuted for following their consciences as Christians, and upholding standards which were, until very recently, the law of the land.  Legal advice from senior QCs indicates that we will soon find that Christians who believe in marriage as always heretofore defined are thereby barred from many occupations and organisations, including education, many public services, and so on.   Likewise  Churches will be obliged to let their halls be used for ceremonies which are against their beliefs, or not let them be used at all; and so on.

For all of these reasons, the proposed legislation is wrong-headed and should be opposed.  Like so many in the country, I appeal to you as our elected representative to oppose it at every opportunity.

Yours sincerely,

--

Call this justice?...

Some years ago, when I was a teenager, I was jumped by some youths, pushed to the ground and kicked in the face and body. Luckily a police car was passing by, and the police intervened before I was very badly hurt.

Nonetheless I was hurt, and also distressed.  The lad they caught (the other got away) was let off with a caution, and I was awarded £5 damages in respect of my watch glass which had been broken.  I was told there is no compensation for the physical and emotional hurt that such an attack causes.

Today I read that a gay couple who were not allowed a room at a Christian-run B&B were awarded £1800 each for 'hurt feelings.'

I am sure there are many other people who have suffered physical assault far worse than mine who will be surprised at this: but clearly having your sexual orientation hurt is far worse than being physically beaten up.

That is not the only aspect of this case which prompts my headline.

Some years ago, when a similar case was prosecuted, I raised the question of equality, in light of the fact that gay hotels operate with no problems.

It is (or was - see update) apparently perfectly ok to advertise:

Guyz Hotel has been run as a gay hotel for the past 24 years,and is one of the most popular and longest established gay hotels in Blackpool, catering for gay couples, singles and groups who want a gay environment with quality accommodation.Previously voted 3rd best gay hotel in UK!!

Just in case that is not clear, this is indeed a hotel that excludes anyone except homosexuals:

Guyz is a GENUINE Gay Hotel.That means it is a hotel owned and run BY gay people FOR gay people, but beware there are some straight owned ‘Pink Pound’ friendly Hotels locally that display the pride flag trying to cash in on gay money, and it isn’t until you check in that you discover they may be mixed, or even have STAG & HEN parties staying.!!! If you are specifically looking for a Gay Hotel be sure to ask if it is exclusively gay when booking to avoid possible disappointment.

As I said back then: it seems clear to me that the legal, political and social developments in this country are nothing to do with equality, but rather pro-homosexual and anti-Christian.

UPDATE

I have just had a look at Guyz current www site (the quotations above were lifted from it some time ago) and I notice it has changed - so perhaps the equality legislation is catching up with them after all.  Certainly at the time the fuss was made about the Cornish Hotel, this text was proudly on their site).

UPDATE 2

Another Blackpool hotel (The Wilcot) advertises:

This Gay Blackpool Hotel has been established since 2004 and in that time has built up and excellent reputation for high Standards and friendliness, Welcoming Gay Men, Lesbians and their friends.

Is there not some discrimination there against people who don't have a gay-friendly attitude?...


UPDATE 3

Someone has just pointed out Chaps Hotel:

Welcome to Chaps Hotel Blackpool. Exclusively gay men only!

Chaps hotel is the largest and one of the best hotels for men only and perfect for Gay holidays and Gay weekends. Chaps Hotel, Blackpool's Premier Gay Hotel is truly one of the most popular hotels in Blackpool and has been 'the place to stay for gay holidays' for many years.

Year of Faith: Evangelium

We had the first parish meeting for the Year of Faith the other day, using the Evangelium material by Fr Marcus Holden and Andrew Pinsent, and published by the CTS (who, it should be noted in passing, have turned around from being somewhat flakey at the end of the the last century to being very good in this - is there hope for other bodies whose name begins 'Catholic...'?).

I nearly didn't go, as it wasn't being run by the PP, but rather by a few of the laity.  However, I decided to, not least because only one of the three lay people was one of the usual suspects; by which I mean that group of well-intentioned people who run most things in the parish, in accordance with an understanding formed in (and irreformable since) the 1970s.

However, I did go, and was pleased that I had done so. The content was excellent.

We did rush over it a bit, covering the first three sections in just over an hour.  The presentation was uninspired: quite a lot of the time we were simply reading texts from slides, and there was little room for questions or discussion. Part of me welcomed that, as uninformed discussion without someone willing and able to explain the Church's teaching can be particularly frustrating.  However, it did make it rather dry.

But, as I mentioned earlier, the content was excellent: we covered 'The Meaning of Life,' ' Creation and Fall,' and 'Salvation History.' (Yes, not bad for 60 minutes!)

I can't remember the last time I heard words like 'Original Sin' and 'Sanctifying Grace' in a Church: my only concern was whether people attending had much clue what they meant.

One of the things I particularly liked was the use of works of art to introduce various topics, with their symbolic meaning explored: see this slide for an example of that.

So I will be going to the next session, and if you get the chance to participate in an Evangelium course, I thoroughly recommend it.

High Mass in Clapham

Mark Lambert's blog carries news of a High Mass in St Mary's, Clapham on 13 October.
This is good news on a number of fronts, but what struck me particularly was the wonderful music:


William Mundy - Kyrie Cunctipotens Genitor

Christopher Tye - Mean Mass

Tallis - O Sacrum Convivium

Byrd - Ave Verum Corpus

For the music alone, it would be worth going; but of course, that is the least of it!

So if you are in or near London, put it in the diary.  Full details at Mark's blog, here.

New Chaplain for Latin Mass Society

The Latin Mass Society has sent me the following press release, which I am delighted to publicise.

LMS Appoints Mgr Gordon Read as New National Chaplain

The LMS is very pleased to announce the appointment of Mgr Gordon Read, Chancellor of Brentwood Diocese, as its new National Chaplain, following the recent departure, for two years of study at the Angelicum in Rome, of Fr Andrew Southwell. He will take up his new office with immediate effect.

Mgr Read is parish priest of St Mary Immaculate and The Holy Archangels, Kelvedon, Essex, and has been a long time supporter of the work of the Society. He is widely held in high regard by many Catholics of all persuasions.

In addition to his responsibilities as parish priest, he is rural dean of Colchester, Chancellor and Judicial Vicar of Brentwood diocese, a member of the Bishop’s College of Consultors, a governor of St Teresa’s Catholic Primary School, Lexden, Vice-chair of Governors, St Benedict’s College, Colchester, and Trustee of the Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland. A frequent contributor of articles to canon law journals, his advice on canonical matters is widely sought.

In 1998 he was appointed honorary Papal Chaplain by Pope John Paul II in recognition of his work for the Diocese of Brentwood. In 2005, Pope Benedict XVI appointed him Prelate of Honour.

Commenting on the new appointment, LMS Chairman Dr Joseph Shaw said: 'We are delighted that Mgr Read has agreed to be our National Chaplain. He is a very long-standing friend of the Society, and a priest regarded with great affection and respect in both the Society and his diocese. His expertise, practical experience, and wisdom will be a great assistance to us in our ever-expanding work.

--

I am sure you will join me in praying for him and for the Latin Mass Society.