Countercultural Father

More on Catholic Voices

2012-01-26T08:40:00.001Z

I have been musing further on Catholic Voices and the antipathy they have encountered in some quarters of the Catholic blogosphere.

(Blog first, think afterwards, that's my motto!)

As I said previously, the issues are complex, but over the last couple of weeks another dynamic has become clearer to me.

On at least two occasions, and with two different CV speakers, I have found myself explaining some of the history that sits behind some current issues; on each occasion I was greeted with 'Oh, I hadn't known about that.'

That is entirely reasonable; the whole point of CV was to recruit younger and fresher voices. They certainly wouldn't want old jaded people like me representing the Church in the public forum. Who knows what I might say!

These younger fresher Voices also tend to start from a positive point of view (that was also a requirement, and an understandable one). So they see something emanating from the official Catholic Establishment (Bishops' Conference, CES, Ecclestone Sq, CAFOD...) and react to it starting with the assumption that it is likely to conform to, and express, a Catholic worldview.

That should be a safe assumption, of course. Unfortunately, in my view and based on a few decades of disillusionment (I'll post some more 'why I am so bitter and twisted' posts eventually), that is no longer a safe assumption.

So when I (and others) hear a young fresh Voice extolling the latest pronouncement or nuance which we find problematic, we think 'But don't they realise...!?!'

But of course it is unfair to expect them to know in detail the battles and betrayals of the last 40 years.

Which raises the question: is it fair to dull their enthusiasm by rehearsing all those old disappointments and disillusionments?

But I have never subscribed to 'if ignorance is bliss...' The task we face is to re-evangelise our world; a necessary pre-cursor in this country is to re-evangelise our Church; and that means really debating and seeking to understand what has gone wrong.

To their credit the Voices with whom I have had these interactions have been open to and interested in the background to my prejudicial views. I don't expect them to agree with them all (that would be frightening indeed!) but I think a critical engagement with the issues is essential.

I still have reservations about the leadership of CV, but that's another issue...

A Catholic Charity

2012-01-25T19:22:00.001Z

A Catholic Charity worthy of your support is Aid to the Church in Need.

At present they are particularly keen to support people in Nigeria, where Churches are being bombed and up to 35,000 are fleeing the onslaught by Muslim extremists.

They are also supporting the reconstruction of a Convent (and Catholic life) in Sarajevo, following the terrible troubles there.

There are many ways to support them, by donations, Mass offerings or getting more actively involved in their work.

Of course prayer is always both valuable and appreciated, so add them to your prayer intentions.

If you are a Twitter user, you can also follow them @churchinneed.

CAFOD-Bashing

2012-01-25T10:49:00.001Z

Reflecting on yesterday's post, I was wondering if I was just indulging in CAFOD-bashing. (For overseas readers, I should explain that CAFOD is the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development, the official aid agency of the Catholic Church in England and Wales).

Some of the complaints I have against them go back quite a long time, and perhaps it is time to forgive and forget.

However, I really don't think so. I work on the (quite possibly delusional) assumption that if I am thinking like this, others may be too.

For that reason, and because it seems to me that CAFOD has betrayed the trust of many who gave (and many who still give) to it based on its claim 'CAFOD seeks to exercise a role consistent with its Catholic character,' I think that CAFOD really needs to do three things:

Firstly, admit that they have got some things wrong: specifically and without reservations (none of the 'sorry if we have been misunderstood' type of rubbish);

Secondly, apologise for the errors;

Thirdly, reform, so that they are totally aligned with Catholic social, moral and liturgical teaching and praxis. That may involve changes in personnel, policy and practice.

Until they do that, those of us who mistrust them will find it very hard to be convinced that they are worthy of support, and will continue to examine them with a prejudicial eye...

Prejudicial, in that we have made our judgement (based on evidence) and until we see reason to reverse it, it is likely to stand.

CAFOD's Remit...

2012-01-24T14:37:00.000Z

Fr Ray Blake raises some interesting points about CAFOD leaping on the anti-Boris Island bandwagon. I think he makes a good case.

The Thirsty Gargoyle responds, linking CAFOD'S concerns to the Holy Father's words about concern for the environment relating closely to concern for people. I think he makes a good case, too.

However, I would have less sympathy for the first and more for the second if CAFOD were to:

a) Align its teaching and praxis more closely with the teaching of the Church in all other areas;

b) Support the pro-Life movement in this country (as well as be proactively pro-life overseas), as after all, our country's record on these issues undermines our ability to offer moral leadership abroad - indeed leads to us exporting a culture of death to many of the countries CAFOD is meant to be helping.

Follow tags at the side for CAFOD if you want to understand my prejudicial approach to this...

Misrepresenting Opus Dei

2012-01-23T08:18:00.003Z

A number of correspondents have told me, some privately and one in a comment on the blog, that I have misunderstood, and therefore inadvertently misrepresented, Opus Dei.

I am assured that numerary members of Opus Dei do not take vows in the way religious do, and of course I accept that. In fact I never said that they did, but I realise it might have been inferred from my talk of commitment to the Evangelical Counsels.

However, I am also told that they are not particularly committed to the Evangelical Counsels; that is to say, no more than to all the virtues, which like the rest of the laity they strive to live. One of them wrote, for example: So, the answer is that the Evangelical Counsels don’t apply to me any more than to you.

I am clearly missing or misunderstanding something here, because my recollection is that when I was invited to join the Opus Dei some 33 years ago, some stress was laid on the Evangelical Counsels and the commitment to them that was part of being a numerary member. Particularly, the commitment to chastity was not just a commitment to chastity in the way all the laity are committed to it. It was a specific commitment to lifelong celibacy. I really don’t think I have got that wrong, as it was fairly pivotal in my decision not to join, and I have also been told by my correspondents that nothing has changed in the interim.

That commitment to celibacy does strike me as something over and above the normal commitment to chastity required of the rest of the laity, which may be pursued in either the single or the married state (typically first the one, then the other, as in my case).

I have probably extrapolated too much from that difference: clearly some of those who are members of Opus Dei think so.

I should make it clear that it is no part of my intention to attack or denigrate Opus Dei. In all years I went to their various centres in London (Kelston, Netherhall, Westpark) I only ever encountered sound Catholic teaching and reverent liturgy - and lots of good formation and good fun.

As ever, I am happy to apologise for any misunderstanding or misrepresentation, and of course any members of Opus Dei who wish to clarify this further are welcome to comment here, or to email me privately.

At what price?

2012-01-22T17:55:00.000Z

It’s what every parent dreads: the arrival of the police at the door, with bad news about your child.

‘She was on a caving trip from University and there’s been accident. A flash flood has caused a small rockfall, and one student is trapped in a narrow passage. Your daughter is behind her, and there is no way to get her out. The student in front of her is in a bad way, with a spinal injury, and can’t be moved without risk to her life. But we can keep her alive at least for a while, with food and water. But your daughter simply can’t be reached, so will not hold out for long. I’m sorry. The tragedy is that there’s no chance of the student who is blocking the passage living. She’s on borrowed time and heavily sedated. The only way we could save your daughter is actually to kill the student in front of her. And even though we know she’s not going to survive, we obviously can’t do that.’

Obviously; and rightly.

None of this has happened, of course: so what is this about?

This morning I heard an exchange on the radio (the Sunday Programme, I think) about organ donation and presumed consent. For balance, they had someone from each side of the debate; that is each side of the 'presumed consent' debate. But both were clear their goals were the same: to increase the number of organ donors.

I am against presumed (= involuntary) consent - for the obvious reasons.

Further, for me, consent is meaningless if uninformed; but how may people know that when they donate a vital organ, it will be taken from them while their heart is still beating?

Finally, I am against the whole business of vital organ donation: that is the removal of organs, whose removal will cause the death of the donor. Non-vital donation is fine and noble: the donor will live on healthily. But vital organs can only be donated by living patients: once the heart stops beating, they deteriorate too quickly. So medics have had to re-define 'death' to justify taking organs from living donors. I have blogged about this before, at more length, here.

And also about the case of the ‘dead’ donor who woke up just in time here.

But Ben, Ben, if it was your child who needed a new heart...!

That’s why I started this post with the caving story. If my daughter were trapped behind someone, even if they were dying, I would not sanction their being murdered to save my child. Likewise, I would not accept the premature killing, even of an (apparently) dying patient so that my child could live longer. Indeed, the medics should never put me in the position to make such a choice. One of the tragic things about the retreat from proper Medical Ethics in favour of a utilitarian culture of abortion, cloning, embryo experimentation, euthanasia, transplanting organs from living patients etc, is the corruption of the medical profession.

Death is not as bad as sin...

Oona Stannard steps down from CES

2012-01-21T14:36:00.000Z

Oona Stannard has officially resigned from her role as Chief Executive and Director of the Catholic Education Service. She has been on leave from her post since November, and will not return before her resignation takes formal effect.

I understand that this is due to health reasons in her family, and am sure all will join me in offering prayers and good wishes for a speedy recovery, God willing.

Astute readers will have noticed that I have not been a fan of the CES under her leadership, and I am pleased that the acting Director, Fr Marcus Stock, will continue in that role for the time being.

Let us hope and pray that a permanent change in leadership leads to a permanent change in approach.

H/t Total Catholic

Petition to restore communion on the tongue (only)

2012-01-21T10:53:00.002Z

Some friends have pointed out the petition started by two Australian priests. It requests that the Holy Father personally intervene to restore the traditional practice of allowing reception of Holy Communion on the tongue only, not on the hand.

If you, like me, agree that this is a vital step in restoring Catholic Liturgy, please sign.

I include below the text of a letter, which was sent as part of the email telling me about this. I do not know the authorship of the letter (UPDATE: see post script below), but think it may be of interest.

Dear friends,
Two Australian priests in the Victorian diocese of Sale have started a worldwide petition to the Holy Father, for going back to the older practice of receiving Holy Communion on the tongue.
Both of these priests, Fr Speekman & Fr Wise are priests in good standing, and accept the current discipline of the Church. Thus they would never refuse to give communion on the hands, to anyone who comes to them. It is because of their pastoral ministries, that they are well aware of the terrible abuses and sacrileges that have crept in to the Church because of this practice, and are requesting the older discipline.
Communion on the hand has been allowed by many countries in the world, with the permission of the Holy See. (In Australia it started on Pentecost Sunday 1976, for instance). The Church says that if one chooses to receive Holy Communion in this manner to receive Our Lord in an reverent manner following the exhortation of St Cyril of Jerusalem, "When you approach, do not extend your hands with palms upwards and fingers apart, but make your left hand a throne for your right hand to receive the King of Kings".

The problem has been that these days, this is the exception rather than the rule, and fragments of hosts (occasionally even the whole ones) turn up in other places, instead of being consumed. In addition to this, surveys have been done throughout the world which indicate that most Catholics have more of a Protestant conception of the Eucharist (in that they see this just as a symbol) instead of its reality as the Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity of Jesus Christ. Poor catecheses in both classes and homilies is very much responsible for this, but it has been reinforced by cavalier attitudes towards the Holy Eucharist.
Restoring the older discipline will go a long way towards solving these issues, if this is what the Church decides. Should anyone think the petition is imprudent or lacking in respect towards the current directives of the Holy See, it is worth reminding us of this precept from the Code of Canon Law, "In accord with the knowledge, competence and pre-eminence which they possess, the Christian faithful have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and they have a right to make their opinion known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard to the integrity of faith and morals and reverence towards their pastors, and for consideration for the common good and dignity of persons." (Canon 212:3)

Communion in the hand remains an option throughout the Latin Church presently, and one must respect the right of persons who choose to partake of this privilege, with the proper dispositions.
With the petition you will find that you can leave a comment. My favourite one is by my friend Michael Hichborn of the American Life League (who I met in 2009 at the John Paul II Cultural Center in Washington DC to be interviewed by Raymond Arroyo on EWTN), a big issue in this American presidential election year.
"Amen! Restoration of the Culture of Life MUST begin with TOTAL respect and reverence for Christ in the Eucharist [the Bread of Life] !"

Neither do I know the source of the accompanying photos, which I assume to be in the public domain as they were circulated with the email. If anyone knows anything to the contrary about their copyright status, please let me know.

Oh, and there's an associated blog, too.

PS And the blog is the source of the letter, written by Andrew Rabel. I really should follow things through before blogging...

An Absolute Responsibility

2012-01-20T23:05:00.004Z

As Catholics, we believe in absolutes. We believe, for example, that it is true that God created the Heavens and the Earth; that God is Father Son and Holy Spirit; and so on.

We also believe in the teachings of the Church as the teachings of Christ.

We believe these things are not just true for us, but absolutely true, even for those with different belief systems or none.

For that reason, we object when people speaking on behalf of the Church about her official teachings seem to equivocate.

But also for that reason,we must be very careful in the truth-claims we make. We should claim no humility, and make no apology, for the teachings of the Church. But we should not claim absolute authority or truth for our interpretation or articulation of them.

The Church is rightly careful in her official teaching documents, and these must be read in a Catholic way: that is to say, in accordance with Scripture, Tradition, and the previous teaching of the Church. To pull individual lines out, or to make our own summaries, and then proclaim them as true is a risky business.

Likewise, to take a particular solution to a problem highlighted by Catholic social teaching, and proclaim it as the answer, is likewise problematic.

This also applies to our judgements of actions and people. We may (and indeed must) say that some actions are absolutely wrong. We may not (indeed must not) judge the people who commit them, as we cannot know the state of their souls.

Precisely because we believe in absolute truth, we should be careful and precise in claiming it.

Cultural Catholicism

2012-01-19T18:22:00.002Z

This post is prompted by the rather sad and acrimonious dispute about Denum Ellarby. I am not going to comment on the specific case, because Caroline Farrow has already written an excellent post on it.

However, reading some of the comments in the online papers made me reflect on Cultural Catholicism.

There seems to be a number of people who want their children to receive First Holy Communion because... well because it’s what their parents did with them, because their friends are doing so, and so on.

I am not denigrating that. I think that a Catholic Culture is a good thing, and we should be very wary of demanding absolute purity of motive in all circumstances. Many of us would not be Catholics or Christians now, if it was not the way things had always been done in our family. Ideally we move beyond that, but it is a fair starting point.

However, what I have noticed is that that Catholic Culture itself has been distorted and corrupted. For time and again I am reading people saying ‘That (or something else) happened to me, and we have never been to Mass since.’

That strikes me as a relatively recent phenomenon: to react to some slight, real or imagined, committed by a single priest by completely excommunicating oneself. That is not something our parents and grandparents would have done, and is a symptom of a deep malaise within the Catholic Community.

In part, that is no doubt fuelled by the media, which love to leap on a story like this and have a fun time Catholic-bashing. But I think it goes much deeper than that, and is the fruit of years of poor education, poor catechesis, and impoverished liturgical life.

It would be easy to say that such a reaction shows the priest was right to refuse to enroll a child for preparation for the sacrament, as it proves the parents had neither the firm intention nor the competence to raise the child in the Faith, which is the commitment they are expected to make.

But I think that would be the wrong lesson to draw. The question has to be: why are the parents so poorly formed, intellectually and spiritually, that they think refusing to go to Mass is going to 'show the Church' rather than realise that what they are really doing is risking their (and their kids') eternal salvation?

The responsibility sits with us all: bishops, priests, teachers, catechists, and laity. We must turn this around.

Prayer and fasting...

BBC and Porn

2012-01-18T17:45:00.000Z

The ever-wonderful BBC (Radio 1 Newsbeat site: target audience teens and young adults I think) has a charming interview with a young lady about her life as a porn star.

You will learn that she is excessively well paid, protected from STIs by a rigorous screening programme, and that her parents, once they learned what she was earning, were able to reverse their previous disapproval.

All most edifying, and just what the licence fee should be paying for.

The BBC seems dedicated to normalising many things which as a civilised nation we have habitually deprecated.

H/t @sitsio on Twitter

On Blogging

2012-01-18T08:48:00.003Z

The other day, someone was hurt and upset by my posts, and tweeted: you've decided to become unappointed uninformed arbiter & commentator to which I penned the riposte: Yes, it's called blogging... (Ho ho Ben, very witty, quote of the day award...)

Twitter brings out the worst in me, I think: the temptation to say the quick and witty thing without really pausing for reflection on its veracity or helpfulness. (Actually, that’s not the worst in me, but this isn’t the confessional and the rest is none of your business!)

But it did cause me to reflect: is that really what I am doing when I am blogging? And if so, is that something I should be doing? I have already reflected on my SAGO tendencies.

However, I do believe that discussing things in the open is frequently helpful. It is conceivable that the Catholic Blogs were in part responsible for the cancellation of the proposed ‘Methodist Ordinations’ in Liverpool Cathedral.

Certainly the fuss over Bonus Pastor alerted me to the problems with Keeping Mum, and enabled me to get it withdrawn from the RE syllabus at the kids’ school.

And in the present instance, even if I am wholly wrong (which is quite probable) in my analysis both of Catholic Voices and its critics, I still think it is helpful for all concerned to know what it looks like from my perspective (and not mine alone, judging by feedback both public and private which I have received.)

Tom Stoppard, in Night and Day, has a character defending the press say: ‘I’ve been around a lot of places. People do awful things to each other. But it’s worse in places where everybody is kept in the dark. It really is. Information is light.’

I think there is some truth in that: information about how others see things, even if that perception is flawed, partial, prejudicial, ill-informed or plain wrong, is helpful.

I apologise to anyone whom I have misrepresented, abused or hurt in anyway. And I shall continue to blog.

What's wrong with CV's critics?

2012-01-16T08:19:00.002Z

In my last, I summarised what I think has gone wrong with the Catholic Voices project.

I think it is also worth looking at the other side of the coin: the way in which some on the Catholic blogosphere have interacted with, and commented on, CV and CV members.

I include myself in that number.

It seems to me that some of us, at least, have been viewing any CV activity, and the activity of anyone associated with it, in a prejudicial light.

For some, that prejudice is partly an occupational issue: for journalists, bad news generally makes better stories than good news: and that applies not only to the likes of Damian Thompson, but also to bloggers who lose sight of their real purpose in pursuit of hits.

On top of that, some have a predisposition to attack anything in which Opus Dei or any member thereof is involved (let's not rehearse the no involvement argument here...)

Then there are those who feel they have been slighted by CV collectively or by Jack or Austen individually. Understandably, that risks colouring their perception of CV.

And there are those, and this included me, who had high hopes of CV, but were dumbfounded at some stage (in my case, the view that the BBC's programme The Pope's Divisions was 'superb').

The result of all that is that a small but vociferous number of Catholic bloggers and journalists have been looking critically (and no doubt from the CV point of view with jaundiced eyes) at everything they do.

Positive things are less likely to be commented on, both because they are less newsworthy (no newspaper ever sold with a headline that every plane landed safely at Heathrow yesterday) and also because they do not fit the dominant narrative about CV in these circles. Anything that can be questioned, is. And anything that is ambiguous is presented as proof at least of incompetence, if not of collusion with some dodgy agenda. That's all fairly understandable, if not always wholly edifying.

But there has also, it seems to me, been something more; something that on the receiving end has felt like harrassment and bullying, even if that was not the intention.

To some extent that is to do with style, but there is something more.

So what have I seen?

Bombardment with a series of messages, showing no inclination to listen to the responses, merely to repeat the message with ever increasing force; name-calling ('CVeebies'); leaping to judgement rather than enquiring ('that's heretical' rather than 'can I check what you're getting at here...?'); treating individuals as part of a collective all the time - and tarring them all with the same brush; casuistry and nit-picking to score points; failure to recognise (even when told) that someone is in an emotionally fragile state, and so on; failure to recognise that these are not career bureaucrats, nor theological experts (that's the point!) but rather individuals who wish to serve the Church and give freely of their time and energy to stand up in the public square and take the hits from the enemy (do they really need 'friendly fire' too?).

I am sure that most of this is done with good intentions: in the pursuit of truth. But when we forget the fundamental inter-relation of Caritas and Veritas, we have lost the plot.

Mea culpa,
Mea culpa,
Mea maxima culpa.

What’s the problem with Catholic Voices?

2012-01-15T22:35:00.001Z

When first I heard of the Catholic Voices project, I thought it a great idea. I was fed up with heterodox people popping up on the BBC allegedly representing the Church - and even the occasional orthodox person they found made me look young (and I was born before Vatican 2).

So training up some young orthodox Catholics in media skills, and helping and encouraging them to present a positive and accurate view of the Church in the public square was a solution to a real problem.

However, recently there has been quite a lot of antagonism between some members of Catholic Voices and others on the Catholic blogosphere. I think the roots of this go quite far back and have little or nothing to do with some of the Catholic Voice members who have got involved more recently.

I hope, in this post, to shed a little light, from one perspective at least, on some of this mess, in the hope that more light will equate to less (inappropriate) heat.

I think there are several separate but intertwined issues that make the CV project very hard to execute successfully as things stand, including the context, the remit, the history, and issues of competence.

The context, as I see it, is that the Catholic establishment in this country has lost its identity and purpose. There is a degree of institutionalised dissent (pace The Tablet, CAFOD etc) and a larger degree of ambiguity and poor leadership, such that Catholics are frequently surprised and dismayed to witness bishops and their officials say and allow things that would have been unimaginable in previous generations (pace Soho Masses, ‘Who knows what’s down the road?” etc.)

In that context, providing a positive and clear voice for Catholicism to the media poses some immediate challenges. What is CV to do when something emerges from the bishops or their agencies that is ambiguous or frankly dubious?

That leads us to the remit. I think for CV to work, they should stick very closely to the areas where there is clear and definitive teaching by the Church: that is areas of Faith and Morals. They should avoid areas where there is scope for prudential judgement and therefore legitimate diversity of opinion between Catholics in good faith. However, many of our bishops seem to like to talk definitively about such things (eg Fairtrade) whilst maintaining a studied ambiguity or steadfast silence about issues of Faith or Morals. When CV start to back the bishops’ positions on prudential matters (whether or not these positions are right) they are inevitably going to alienate some, and position themselves as a mouthpiece for the bishops rather than doing what it says on the tin.

When it comes to history, I was first really alarmed by Catholic Voices when they proclaimed the BBC Programme The Pope’s British Divisions to be ‘superb’ which was an extraordinary verdict, and seemed to me to suggest more complicity with the establishment than Catholic sense, as I blogged here. Many other British Catholics were similarly outraged at the programme. There have been a number of other occasions on which CV has taken a position that has dismayed some orthodox Catholics.

It is against this background which people judge current CV proclamations - and indeed members: they see CV as having ‘form’ - that is being compromised.

Finally, there are issues of competence. Recently Damian Thompson wrote a characteristically snide piece on his Telegraph blog, mainly attacking Opus Dei, but including the assertion that Catholic Voices has ‘Opus Dei's fingerprints all over it.’

Catholic Voices then tweeted: Opus Dei has no financial, spiritual, managerial, or indeed any other involvement in CV. Damian Thompson is spreading counterknowledge.

Yet we all know that one of the leading figures in Catholic Voices is Jack Valero. His Twitter profile says: 'Press Officer for Opus Dei in UK. In 2010 Press Officer for Newman's beatification. Coordinator for Catholic Voices.' He is not just a press officer as a hired hand, of course: that is not how Opus Dei works: he is a senior member of the organisation.

As PR experts, could CV not see that the tweet was not hugely convincing? When I suggested that CV had shot itself in the foot with this one, the reply was:

‘Two of the coordinators are members of a parish in Pimlico. Does that mean their parish is involved in CV? Of course not.'

This starts to look like casuistry. Is that really the image to cultivate?

The Pimlico parallel is so weak as to be ridiculous: if the PP at Pimlico were involved, the parallel would be closer - and the claim of ‘no involvement’ even weaker. And of course, we know that any numerary member of Opus Dei is bound by the evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity and obedience. When Jack Valero is acting as Coordinator for Catholic Voices, he does not, presumably, leave his obedience to his Opus Dei superiors at the door. So the claim that he is acting in a purely private capacity is hard for anyone outside Opus Dei to understand, however self-evident it may be to those within Opus Dei...

But my point is not the propriety or otherwise of this, but that, given that context, the CV tweet saying Opus Dei has no financial, spiritual, managerial, or indeed any other involvement in CV was inept. There is so much else they could usefully have said that would not have made them look either stupid or deliberately misleading. And the tweet ended with an Ad hominem attack: a poor and unworthy strategy, I think. And that is just one, recent, example of what I see as a very poor record in managing PR.

My hopes are two:

One is that CV finds a way to re-invent itself, and does not fall into the trap which so many parts of the pro-Life movement have fallen into, of keeping people at the top who had a great idea but are not the best leaders for the long term...

The second is that those young Catholics who have joined CV with the sole intention of sticking up for the Church are not brow-beaten by those who, like me, have grown frustrated with the ineptitude and complicity of some at the top of CV. If people have a quarrel with Austen or Jack, don’t take it out on anyone else - and don't tar all CV members with the same brush.

Update: further musings here.

I'm such an elitest snob...

2012-01-12T12:50:00.008Z

Fr Ray Blake carries an appreciative note about an event at the Oratory on God and Shakespeare.

I thought it sounded really interesting, but I was clearly wrong...

Rev Alan Griffiths said...

I don't think this would be very relevant or a priority to the lives of most working class urban catholics struggling to get by in difficult times. I feel it also highlights what a fantasy bubble most of you uber-traditionalists live in.

I am sure Fr Griffiths knows more about the lives and priorities of working class urban Catholics than I do, but I can't help wondering: even if he is right, is that a good thing?

Would it not be better if intellectual and cultural stimulation were more of a priority, and seen as more relevant, in such circles and such times? Not least given the social support that comes from people meeting to discuss together things pertinent to their Faith (though of course holding hands at the Our Father, and shaking hands at 'the Peace' is so much more effective at building solidarity...)

There is something rather brutal in the implication that in tough times we insult people by talk of culture and ideas. Though I do accept, of course, that only working class urban Catholics are worthy of any support...

And then the well-informed comment about uber-traditionalists...

But hey, I'm white, male, middle class, educated, middle aged, Catholic (probably that means uber-traditionalist) so what would I know? Think I'll go back to my fantasy bubble.

The Light goes on in Lancs

2012-01-09T13:51:00.002Z

This Lent, every Catholic Church in Lancaster Diocese will be open every Wednesday evening from 7.00 pm - 8.00 pm for confession and quiet prayer. From the Diocesan www site:

The Light is On For You!

The special invitation to experience Christ’s love through the Sacrament of Reconciliation is a major new initiative of Bishop Michael Campbell OSA. The Light is on For You! initiative highlights the importance of this sacrament in the life of Catholics and increases its availability, hoping that every Catholic will visit this source of God’s mercy and healing love.

Congratulations to our bishop! Ad Multos Annos!

H/t Fr Brown at Forest Murmurs

Bishop vs. Bishops

2012-01-09T09:12:00.000Z

I am privileged to live in the Diocese of Lancaster.

Perhaps because it is the furthest in England you can get from Ecclestone Square, the Bishop here sometimes breaks step with the Bishops' Conference of England and Wales.

Bishop O'Donoghue famously did it with his Fit for Mission series; this was well received by Rome (and many lay Catholics and priests), but ignored by the Conference...

Now our current Bishop, Bishop Campbell has done the same thing, with his New Year Pastoral Letter, about which I shall probably write more.

Why is it that when individual Bishops speak out, they are sometimes so much more Catholic than anything that emerges from the collective bureaucracy?

Bishop O'Donoghue addressed that, too, in Fit for Mission, Church. His analysis was that dividing important issues into "areas of responsibility" for designated bishops to lead on, had the effect of making the rest of them "reluctant … to speak out on these issues, as if somehow they had handed over their competence in these areas to the responsible bishop and his particular committee".

This collegial approach does not seem to be working. Bishop O'Donoghue lamented that, too. For example: "I must register, too, my disappointment that our Bishops' Conference recently could not agree a collegial response to the Government's legislation on same-sex adoption."

So what should we do about it?

The good bishop had plenty to say about that as well: at a talk to the Oxford Newman Society soon after the publication of Fit for Mission, Church, he had several practical and excellent suggestions. The talk is well worth reading - and re-reading - and then acting on.

However, what has not been resolved is the problem of the Conference vs the individual bishop, the dampening effect of bureaucracy and the party line. What we need is more bishops prepared to act as bishops: teaching with authority, in accordance with the Faith of our Fathers.

On SAGO and other issues...

2012-01-08T13:02:00.003Z

I am in a reflective mood today. Yesterday I posted a pertinent and searching post (I thought) and then pulled it in short order, because I realised that it was more likely to fuel unpleasantness than achieve the ends I wanted.

That made me reflect: what were the ends I wanted? Positive change, I suppose.

And I realised that the post as written was extremely unlikely to have effected that.

So why had I written it the way I had? Because it was clever, incisive, likely to draw some cheers from some people, controversial, likely to inflate my stats?...

Moreover, it seemed so evidently obvious and unarguable to me that a foot had been placed firmly in a mouth: however, other intelligent people did not see it that way at all. I still think I was right in my analysis (of course!) but that made it clearer than ever that a clever blog post was not going to be the epiphany for the other party that I hoped.

I have also been observing with growing dismay the unpleasantness of many of the interactions on the Catholic blogosphere. Name-calling, in particular, I dislike: CVeebies, for example, being used to imply that all those participating in the Catholic Voices initiative are some sort of dumbed down, brainwashed lackies of Austen, Jack and Kathleen; or Taliban Catholics, for people who actually believe the hard bits, too, and expect bishops to stand up for them. This kind of labeling assumes as a given a particular and prejudicial story, and seems to me to be both intellectually lazy and uncharitable.

But actually, I wonder if people like me are a bigger part of the problem: people who sit on the sidelines as Self Appointed Guardians of Orthodoxy (given my dislike of cheap labels, you will understand that SAGO is particularly appealing...)

I fully understand why we do it: our intentions are good. We know that all is not well in the Catholic Church in this country; we are fiercely protective of it, and hugely frustrated and angered when we try to raise our concerns and are told to hold our tongue.

But when that turns from constructive comment designed to help and move the agenda forward, to ridicule (of which I have certainly been guilty: I do enjoy it!) and demonisation (of which I have also been guilty, though I try to avoid it) then I think we have lost the plot. And if SAGO loses its flavour...

Ouch! Was that my foot...?

2012-01-07T07:48:00.001Z

I have removed this post as I am not sure it was helpful. I will pick up the issues raised in other ways...

BBC's Euthanasia Campaign

2012-01-05T09:51:00.000Z

As I write the lead story on the BBC's www site is:

'Strong case' for assisted dyingThere is a "strong case" for allowing assisted suicide for people who are terminally ill in England and Wales, a group of experts says.

If one follows through to the article, they do mention that 'Critics say it is biased.'

As it was set up by people with a commitment to Euthanasia, funded by people with a commitment to Euthanasia, and even the BMA recognised it was bogus and refused to give evidence, perhaps the BBC could have recognised the validity of the criticism...

But as so often, despite 'balance' to give the impression of impartiality, the BBC's view comes through loud and clear, just as it did on the Today programme this morning.

Apart from anything else, giving this top story billing lends it an importance and credibility that few other PR stunts could command, as does the unbalanced front page headline quoted above, (for 'experts', they could have had 'pro-euthanasia campaigners' if they had really wanted to remain impartial - and accurate).

Euthanasia

2012-01-04T18:43:00.001Z

John Smeaton's blog reminds me that Lord Falconer is due to publish his dodgy euthanasia report tomorrow.

Many years ago, I had the privilege of meeting a Catholic Poet, Elizabeth Jennings (1926 - 2001). She was fascinating, not least because her conversation (full of non sequiturs, interrupting self with multiple sub-clauses) was so different from her poetry (formal, precise, concise).

Here is her poem, Euthanasia:

The law's been passed and I am lying low

Hoping to hide from those who think they are

Kindly, compassionate. My step is slow.

I hurry. Will the executioner

Be watching how I go?

Others about me clearly feel the same.

The deafest one pretends that she can hear.

The blindest hides her white stick while the lame

Attempt to stride. Life has become so dear.

Last time the doctor came,

All who could speak said they felt very well.

Did we imagine he was watching with

A new deep scrutiny? We could not tell.

Each minute now we think the stranger Death

Will take us from each cell

For that is what our little rooms now seem

To be. We are prepared to bear much pain,

Terror attacks us wakeful, every dream

Is now a nightmare. Doctor's due again.

We hold on to the gleam

Of sight, a word to hear. We act, we act,

And doing so we wear our weak selves out.

We said, "We want to die" once when we lacked

The chance of it. We wait in fear and doubt.

O life, you are so packed

With possibility. Old age seems good.

The ache, the anguish - we could bear them we

Declare. The ones who pray plead with their God

To turn the murdering ministers away,

But they come softly shod.

Elizabeth Jennings

Have SPUC lost the plot?

2012-01-04T17:51:00.000Z

I notice that SPUC has launched a campaign against gay marriage.

As the more discerning readers of this blog will have noticed, I am not a fan of gay marriage.

However, I do wonder about the wisdom and appropriateness of SPUC launching into this one.

I understand John Smeaton's belief that attacks on marriage are fundamentally attacks on a culture of life: indeed I share that belief.

Nonetheless, given SPUC's remit and declared non-religious nature, I think that this risks leaving many supporters behind, as the amount of catechesis needed to get the average non-Catholic (and probably, alas, the average Catholic) to understand the linkage is immense.

Further, by attacking gay marriage, SPUC is provoking a very vehement counter-attack: they had better be ready for it; and they had better have made sure that every last comma of their position paper and their background briefing is unassailable academically, or they will bring themselves - and the whole pro-life movement by association - into disrepute.

Of course, if the Bishops were leading the charge, John Smeaton would not feel the need to do so. But I think he needs to be clear: is SPUC's purpose to advance the Pro-Life cause on a non-religious basis, or is it to make up for the deficiencies (real or imagined) of the Bishops in this country? Latterly, a lot of energy seems to have been expended on the second of these alternatives.

Either it's simple or I am...

2012-01-04T17:12:00.000Z

It seems to me...

The purpose and result of Civil Partnerships is to normalise and make respectable homosexual relationships.

Should the Catholic Church approve of or collude with such measures?

The CDF says no.

The Bishops of E&W seem more ambiguous. Indeed, it appears that their position has changed by 180 degrees.

The fact that some people need to write screeds and screeds to explain how the Bishops' nuanced position is totally aligned with the CDF's (and historic Catholicism's) suggests that the CDF's approach is clearer, and raises further doubts about the Bishops'.

Actually, understanding the Church's teaching on this (the intrinsic disorder of homosexual attraction and the sinfulness of homosexual activity) is not so hard.

The more difficult thing is to convey the Church's teaching clearly, in a way that is completely truthful and completely charitable.

This is important, because the genesis of homosexuality is not clear. It may be genetic, in whole or in part; it may be environmental in whole or in part, and so on. The point is that if there is any element that is open to influence, we should be minimising the risk of young people coming to self-identify as homosexual - as it is a disorder. Normalising it works in the opposite direction.

Breast Enlargement and Mind Contraction

2012-01-04T08:19:00.000Z

All the fuss about faulty breast implants has prompted me to reflect on the similarities of this issue with the abortion debate.

Clearly the scale of seriousness is different, but there are parallels.

First, I should say that I am not talking here about reconstructive surgery, but cosmetic surgery.

When a doctor agrees to undertake cosmetic surgery for trivial reasons he or she is, in my view, doing something similar to an abortionist, in this way. He is treating social and psychological problems as though a physical solution is the right answer.

Thus he is not only colluding with the superficial diagnosis of the patient ('If only I had bigger breasts, then I'd be happy/confident/loved...') but also contributing both to her not addressing the underlying issues, and also to others feeling under greater pressure to conform to undesirable social norms (that all women should aspire to look like pin-up girls).

Want to paint an Icon?

2012-01-03T18:13:00.000Z

You will need to study first - then pray. To paint (or more accurately, 'write') an icon is a spiritual undertaking.

One of the leading exponents in the UK is Sr Petra Clare of the Sancti Angeli Benedictine Skete in Scotland.

To see some examples of her fabulous work, go here.

She is just launching an online iconography course. Here is an extract from her wwwsite:

Part A: Roots of Iconography.

The first part of the course starts from the pre-Christian artwork of the great civilisations of the time of Christ, and the techniques which were taken over from them and transformed to convey the new revelation of the Incarnate God.

As the four Apostolic patriarchates - Jerusalem, Rome, Antioch and Alexandria - were formed, the Christians developed a new artistic language.

Iconography exercises include positive and negative space, calligraphic brushstroke, the Sinai Christ, ‘the pilgrim icon.’

Part B: Studying Scripture through Icons.
from 2012

The second part of the course looks at icons as Biblical exegesis. Starting with the Old testament precursors, moving through the Gospel narrative and completing with St. Paul, we see how a visual language was developed which parallels and depends on the Scriptural exegesis of the Church Fathers. Special attention is given to Gregory of Sinai’s exegesis of the Transfiguration.

Iconography exercises include composition, the ‘spiritual flow’ diagram and tonal exercises ‘from darkness to light.’

Part C: Iconography of the Councils.
from 2013

The third part of the course explores how icons became associated with the liturgy. We study icons which transmit the teaching of the Church Councils - Nicea I and the ‘Trinity;’ Ephesus and the Icons of the Mother of God; Chalcedon and the dialogue of colour and form reflecting the two natures; and the effects on iconography of inter-church conflict, the Celtic question and the rise of Islam.

Iconography exercises focus on writing the icon to convey the teaching of the Church through composition and colour

Part D: The 7th Ecumenical & the Iconographical Canons.
from 2013

The fourth part of the course covers the important doctrinal controversy of iconoclasm, in which the theological principles of Church art were clarified and the first canons of Christian art formulated. This covers Nicea II, the western response and ends with the Baptism of the Rus,’ and the association of the Sinai tradition of ‘prayer of the heart ‘ with the luminous Russian icons.

H/t Fr Brown at Forest Murmurs. Fr Brown has commissioned numerous icons from St Petra Clare, so visit his Churches (current or previous) for a real visual treat!

Why I'm so bitter and twisted #314

2012-01-02T22:49:00.001Z

Many years ago, when I was younger and only a little bit bitter and twisted (at least compared to now) I went to see a bishop.

(It was a different chap from the one there now, and a different diocese from the one in which I now live).

I had some concerns about Catholic education in a Catholic School my daughters were at. One of the issues I mentioned was that they were not even taught about the obligation to attend Mass on Sundays (this seemed fairly basic to me, if one is to teach anything about Catholicism to anyone...)

The bishop responded that the schools could not teach about the Sunday obligation, as some children's parents might not go to Mass on Sundays, and that would make the children think they were doing something wrong.

I think that was when I started to worry seriously about our bishops...

Just follow that line of reasoning down any of the interesting avenues it opens up... See what I mean?

Equivocate, that's the word I was searching for.

Now what recently could have brought that to mind?

A Plague on Both Their Houses?...

2012-01-01T22:31:00.000Z

I have been watching the spat between various people involved with Catholic Voices (on the one hand) and John Smeaton and many others (on the other) with growing dismay.

I don't know any of the participants personally, though I have communicated with many publicly, and some on each side privately. To the extent that I feel I know them, I think I like them, and certainly respect the commitment they exemplify.

However, I also agree with some of John Smeaton's criticisms of the bishops, with some of Caroline Farrow's criticisms of John Smeaton, with some of James Preece's criticisms of Catholic Voices' leadership, and so on and so on.

But what I think is really clear is that Twitter, above all, is no place for such discussions. The brevity alone leads to over-simplification, brusqueness and so on, and there is also something questionable about having such discussions in such a public forum.

So I am tempted to call down a plague on both their houses - but of course I don't want to do so. I would far prefer...

To see a coherent and united pro-life movement emerge in this country; and
To have clear and unequivocal teaching about Catholic Faith and Morals.

So rather than stir the pot any more, I would ask all readers to pray for all concerned.

Biased, the BBC?...

2011-12-29T15:11:00.000Z

I notice on the BBC News www frontpage:

The jury in the Stephen Lawrence murder trial retires to consider its verdict against defendants Gary Dobson and David Norris. (my emphasis).

So the BBC clearly knows the correct verdict...

Home Made Cards

2011-12-28T11:08:00.000Z

The kids always make their Christmas Cards. Here are the ones they presented us with this year; each fairly characteristic.

Ant:

Bernie:

Charlie:

Dominique:

And wishing all my readers a Happy and Holy Christmastide...

Just in time

2011-12-23T08:01:00.000Z

A young man in an 'irreversible coma' woke just in time. That is, just before the doctors were about to remove his vital organs for transplant, thus killing him. Lifesite News carries the story.

When the death penalty was abolished in this country, it was done because there was a political consensus that the risk of killing an innocent person, small though it was, was not a risk that a civilised country ought to take. This young man was 'thought to be' 'brain dead.'

Of course he was not dead: his heart was beating, his body was functioning at some level. But that is necessary for vital organ donation: truly dead donors are of no value, as the vital organs deterioriate too quickly once the circulation of blood has stopped. (See previous posts tagged Organ donation for a fuller discussion and links...)

It is that necessity for what are called 'heart-beating donors' which has led to the redefinition of death so that vital organs may be taken from patients who (until recently) any doctor would have certified as still alive.

This case, along with many others, proves how costly that utilitarian re-definition is in reality.

We have come a long way since then - but I would not call it progress.

H/t Blondpidge on Twitter

Everyone was so upset the baby turned out to be healthy...

2011-12-22T16:40:00.002Z

Where on earth would one expect to come across such a comment?

When the healthy child survived the attempted abortion, was delivered alive, but allowed to die, because it was thought to be unwanted (though in fact the mother had been scared into having the abortion by medics telling her the child was severely handicapped).

Here's how the Independent reported the NHS Medical Director's reaction:

Richard Blunt, medical director of the Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS Trust, said that no attempt to resuscitate the baby was made, despite it appearing healthy, because Ms James was undergoing a termination. "If you do a termination late in pregnancy then [the foetus] comes out in one piece ... and that therefore it may be alive and kicking. This is the dreadful thing. [The foetus] did not have any major physical abnormalities, but it would require a post-mortem to establish any internal problems. Everyone was so upset it turned out to be healthy."

This was back in 1994 (the report is from 1996), but I don't remember coming across it then.

Read the full article, weep and pray...

What is Truth? The trahison des clercs...

2011-12-22T16:11:00.002Z

A friend of mine works at Newcastle University, and he reports that recently the Vice Chancellor, Professor Chris Brink, a logician by discipline, was considering refreshing the University’s Vision or Mission or some-such.

The story is that he wished to include in it a reference to truth, in relation to the aims of research. Apparently the Faculties of Medical Sciences and of Science, Agriculture and Engineering were happy with this proposal and this characterisation of their work.

But the Faculty of Humanities, and Social Sciences was outraged that he could consider such an idea. Surely he knew, as all (non-scientific) academics do that truth is simply a social construct, and that a University that claimed to be in pursuit of truth would be the laughing stock of academe (at least in Social Science circles).

This strikes me as the Trahison des clercs of our time. ‘What is truth?’ asked Pilate, before delivering Truth to be nailed to a tree.

Professor Brink, both as a logician, and having heroically led Stellenbosch University in South Africa through difficult times, and witnessed himself the importance of the Truth and Reconciliation process there, knows a thing or two about truth.

The good news is that the Scientists, Engineers and Medics were mystified by their colleagues’ protestations. As a doctor said on the radio the other day (discussing philosophy - no reference as I was driving at the time...) ‘It is hard to believe in the impossibility of communication when someone is calling you to deal with a Cardiac Arrest on Ward 6.’

The bad news is that the VC allowed the Humanities and Social Science gang to veto ‘truth’ in the mission statement.

A new Catholic University for London?

2011-12-21T22:45:00.000Z

The Benedictus Trust is planning to found a new Catholic University in London.

They have had recent coverage in both the Catholic Herald and the Sunday Times.

They plan to launch their fundraising campaign in the Spring. See here for further details.

I am sure they will value prayers, as well as financial support...

Physical means to therapeutic ends?...

2011-12-21T07:15:00.001Z

A general rule of thumb in medicine is to ensure a correct diagnosis before proceeding to treatment.

I have also heard wise medics say: the presenting problem is often not the real problem.' that is why many are concerned at (for example) the self-prescription of Ibuprofen and other drugs: without a proper diagnosis, patients may be covering up symptoms of something that needs different, and possibly more serious, treatment.

Let us turn then to the issue of abortion. 95 - 98% of abortions (let us not quarrel about the precise number, it is big enough in either case) are performed for therapeutic reasons - that is reasons related to the mental wellbeing of the mother or of other existing children.

Yet the treatment is a physical one: destruction of the unborn baby (or foetus/embryo/, if you will).

That is poor medicine - as is evidenced by the fact that the same procedure frequently has to be carried out again and again on the same women. The underlying problems are not being addressed.

The real problems are things like:

Some women getting pregnant when they do not want to, or are in no position to, raise a child

A society which teaches that it is better to have an unwanted child aborted than adopted;

Some women viewing pregnancy as a disease or a disaster or something to be feared, rather than a blessing (as many do, of course);

Some men demanding that women be sexually available to them 'without consequences;'

Some men putting huge pressure on women to have an abortion the woman does not in fact want;

Lack of social and societal support for women facing unwanted pregnancies;

and on and on.... (speak to anyone who works in pregnancy counselling for a long list).

Abortion, of course, solves none of these: how could it?

Doctors do themselves and women, not to mention their unborn children, a huge injustice when they collude with the pretence that abortion is the solution. They should undertake a proper diagnosis, and then help women form a positive plan, with the necessary support, to start to address the problems surrounding their pregnancy.

I am going to cover myself in Vaseline...

2011-12-20T21:28:00.001Z

... and pretend I am a slug, Charlie announced at tea tonight.

For a moment there, I was worried!

As an evil Christian...

2011-12-20T17:39:00.001Z

... I will no longer be shopping at Tescos.

Their support for the Gay Pride March in London was bad enough. Now, Christians who support the traditional Christian teaching on marriage have been branded 'evil' by Nick Lansley, Head of Reseach and Development for the Tesco Website. He wrote: “I’m also campaigning against evil Christians (that’s not all Christians, just bad ones) who think that gay people should not lead happy lives and get married to their same-sex partners.”

The Iona wwwsite carries the story.

I have written to Philip Clarke, the CE, explaining why.

H/t Fr Ray Blake

Are 98% of abortions in Britain illegal?

2011-12-19T19:15:00.001Z

That is the case argued by Dr Peter Sanders

He made the claim on a Radio 4 Today programme interview/debate, and has substantiated on his blog.

It is a long post and well worth reading, but the summary is this:

Summary
So where does this leave doctors? Let me sum it up:
1.There is no evidence that continuing with an unwanted pregnancy poses any greater risk to a pregnant woman’s mental health than an abortion does and yet 98% of abortions are authorised on these grounds
2.The doctors who are authorising these abortions are not therefore doing so ‘in good faith’
3.These abortions are therefore unlawful under the Abortion Act 1967 and Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and those doctors who are carrying them out are committing a criminal offence
4.Those doctors who are authorising them are knowingly and wilfully making false statements on legal documents and are thereby committing an offence under the Perjury Act 1911
5.These offences under the Abortion Act and Perjury Act both carry custodial sentences

His blog is generally worth a look, too. See, for example, his comments on the BBC and Gay issues...

H/t Blondpidge on Twitter.

The Holy Shroud

2011-12-19T16:37:00.001Z

According to scientists (at ENEA, Italy’s National Agency for New Technologies,Energy and Sustainable Economic Development) the claim that the Shroud of Turin is a medieval fake, is wrong.

They criticise the dating process, and in particular the withholding of data and the refusal to explore competing hypotheses.

They also raise several other problems with the medieval fake theory, which does not account for many of the unique qualities of the Shroud.

In short, the real science seems to suggest that there is no normal explanation for the creation of the image on the cloth, and certainly no likelihood that any medieval forger could possibly have created such an artefact: we couldn't even do it now with all the technology at our disposal.

H/t Protect the Pope

Organ Donation: another assault on life

2011-12-19T12:05:00.004Z

I have decided to re-post on the subject of Organ Donation, as it is some years since I last mentioned this important and misunderstood subject, and I have rather more readers now than I did have then...

Until I researched it a bit, I had not realised that for hearts (and certain other vital organs) to be transplanted successfully, they must be taken from a living body, as they deteriorate beyond usefulness on death. And that in order to facilitate that, the medical profession has introduced the notion of ‘brain death’ to legitimise the practice.

This has disturbed many nurses and others, as they cannot believe that the donor is dead when his or her heart is beating, flesh is warm, and (in one case) when he put his arm around the nurse just before they were about to remove his heart.

So what do our medical professionals do? Inject a drug that paralyses the donor - and then proceed.

The parallels with the murderous assaults on the unborn in the womb are extraordinary: the start of life re-defined contrary to the evidence, the injection of tranquilisers or anaesthetics prior to the killing...

A good source of information is the Anscombe Centre (formerly the Linacre Centre). In their article on criteria for death, they comment on the problems with the (relatively) recent notion of 'brain death' as the determining criterion:

The Anscombe Centre's own view is that `brain death' protocols are insufficient for establishing the death of the body: we have become increasingly convinced by evidence suggesting that integrated bodily activity can continue after `brain death' has been diagnosed. There have been documented cases of `brain dead' patients maintaining bodily functions for months or even years: pregnant women have gone through pregnancy, children have grown up and passed through puberty, etc. 3 Moreover, it is well-known to transplant teams that heartbeating donors move when organs are taken, unless they are paralysed by drugs, and that their blood pressure goes up when the incision is made. It is worth noting that some anaesthetists recommend that the supposed `cadaver' be anaesthetised when his/her organs are retrieved. Most organ donors are unaware that their hearts may be beating when their organs are taken, and that they may be pink, warm, able to heal wounds, fight infections, respond to stimuli, etc.

(Link here, and see also their 'Definition of Death' comments)

In 2008 a government commissioned report, after studying a huge body of evidence, came to the 'wrong' conclusion that the consent of organ donors should be explicit not presumed: however, the political class did not want that answer, and are positioning themselves to ignore it. The BBC, of course, will be involved in a campaign to soften up public opinion.

We have another fight on our hands...

Collect for the Fourth Sunday in Advent

2011-12-18T17:16:00.002Z

This is the collect for the Fourth Sunday of Advent in the Extraordinary Form. It is also the prayer we say (this week) after singing O Come O Come Emmanuel around our Advent Wreath.

We know this one less well, as it is rarely said for the full week (depending, of course, on which day of the week Christmas is). This year we do get a full week's worth, so I hope it will be committed to memory with the others...

Arise we beseech thee O Lord in thy strength, and come in might to our aid; that by the work of thy grace, that good to which our sins are a sore hindrance may, in the fullness of thy forgiveness, speedily be vouchsafed to us.

Vaclav Havel - RIP

2011-12-18T13:45:00.001Z

Another writer whom I admired has just died: Vaclav Havel.

He was also, of course, the first President of the Czech Republic.

I have not seen any of his plays, but following references to his work by Tom Stoppard (another writer whom I enjoy - in good health when last heard of...), I bought and read Sorry in 1982. It is actually two plays, both featuring a character Vanek who is at least semi-autobiographical (and was played in the Radio 3 productions by Harold Pinter, and on Play for Today by Michael Crawford). Some five years later, I also bought and read (but never saw) Largo Desolato and The Memorandum.

All of these are powerful and haunting dramatic works. His reputation as a writer was well-established - and rightly so - quite apart from his role as a dissident, and then a political leader.

Of his political contribution, I am not well-placed to judge, but he was clearly hugely important in the breaking of the communist tyranny in his country.

American Catholic carries an interesting speech by him here.

Remember him in your prayers.

Requiem aeternam dona ei Domine.

Hitchens on Abortion

2011-12-18T11:07:00.003Z

A very interesting article by Jill Stanek on the late Christopher Hitchens and his views on (and experiences pertaining to) abortion (H/t Life Site News.) I have quoted this passage from CS Lewis' Miracles before:

What we learn from experience depends on the kind of philosophy we bring to experience. It is therefore useless to appeal to experience before we have settled, as well as we can, the philosophical question.

It seems particularly germane to the issues surrounding the humanity of humans before birth - as recent lengthy but not very illuminating comments on Bones' blog have witnessed...

RIP

2011-12-17T11:26:00.005Z

In all the fuss about Christopher Hitchen's death, the death of a far greater writer in the same week has passed almost without comment.

I refer to Russell Hoban.

Hoban was a highly skilled and highly original novelist and children's author. His best known adult novel is probably Riddley Walker, a haunting post-apocalyptic dystopian novel, written in a fallen English with searing intensity and profound insights into the human condition. Turtle Diary is a very gentle novel, made into a film with Ben Kingsley and Glenda Jackson, with a screenplay by Pinter (as an aside, I consider Pinter a far better screenwriter than playwright). Hoban's other novels are nearly always very rewarding, for his imaginative inventiveness and spare yet powerful use of language. A few should have an X Certificate...

His children's books include the wonderful Frances stories, the anarchic Tom and Captain Najork books, the delightful Twenty-Elephant Restaurant, and the very quirky Big John Turkle, Charlie Meadows et al. 'Bleak Outlo' is regularly quoted here, along with many other Hobanesque phrases. And then, of course, there was The Mouse and His Child, with the unforgettable Manny Rat.

I started with the claim that he was a greater writer than Hitchens. That is not to say that I think Hitchens a poor writer: he was, at his best, very entertaining and engaging. He was, of course, a man of strong prejudices and some very silly views; but as a writer, he knew his craft.

But I would stake a large wager that Hoban will be read and enjoyed by both adults and children long after Hitchens is forgotten.

The BBC report (linked above) quotes a Guardian interview in which he suggested that death would be a "good career move". He added: "People will say, 'yes, Hoban, he seems an interesting writer, let's look at him again'."

Which of them will have been more surprised to meet his Maker, I couldn't hazard a guess; but may God in His infinite goodness have mercy on both their souls, and may they rest in peace.

Sundays

2011-12-16T18:58:00.000Z

A recent post about Mass on Saturday evenings or Sunday mornings, prompted a bit of discusion in the Comms box.

Part-time Pilgrim wrote:

What lies behind this is (I think) the idea - correct idea - that fulfilling your Sunday obligation is necessary to keep the third commandment but not sufficient. A more interesting question is: "What else should a Catholic do on Sunday to mark it as the Lord's day?"

A great question!

We also go to Adoration and Benediction, once a month (that's all that's on offer). We also do 'Sunday Morning Religion' with the kids: typically reading and discussing a chapter of Sheed, Knox (Mons R, not the other chap) or something.

We abstain from work (and shopping of course), as best we can (though sometimes the kids remember urgent homework, and occasionally I have a work crisis that needs addressing before Monday, usually due to poor planning...) and often go for a family walk, and sometimes play games around the fire.

But other than that, we don't do a lot to differentiate. I'd be intrigued to hear what others do.

Sex Ed: hazardous to your child's health

2011-12-14T12:27:00.006Z

National Review Online carries a fascinating interview with Dr Miriam Grossman, about her new book: You’re Teaching My Child What?: A Physician Exposes the Lies of Sex Ed and How They Harm Your Child.

It includes, inter alia:

When teens are questioned about their last sexual encounter, more than half admit they did not use a condom. This will not come as a surprise to anyone who is aware of the insights this new century has brought us about adolescent brain development. Neither should we rush to increase the truckloads of free condoms delivered to our schools. Biology is saying the answer isn’t latex, the answer is time.

Towards the end, she comments on National (US) guidelines on sexuality for teenagers:

Later, readers are advised, “It is up to you to determine how much risk you are willing to take.” And: “Many teens choose to be sexually active and many choose not to. You have the right to decide exactly what behaviors, if any, you are comfortable participating in.”
Imagine if a nutritionist taught your child: “There are many types of diets. A diet low in saturated fats, carbohydrates, and sugars helps prevent obesity and cardiac disease. Some kids try to keep a healthy diet, others don’t. You have the right to decide what to eat.”
I don’t think this approach would be well-received. Yet this is what passes as sex education in our country.

All of it is worth reading, so go and have a look.

H/t Challenge Team UK on Facebook

Sexual identity: Nature or Nurture?

2011-12-14T07:02:00.006Z

I was irritated yesterday to hear that Hamleys had succumbed to a Twitter campaign and had changed its traditional arrangement of toys. It used to be that Boys' Toys were on some floors and Girls' Toys were on another. So you might see, on the one hand, an array of cars, fighting heroes and action toys; or on the other, lots of pink fluffy things.

But this was terrible gender steroetyping, apparently; although, in fact, there were no security guards turning the girls away from the train sets (the only bit of Hamleys my wife remembers visiting as a child) or excluding boys from the Barbie aisle.

The campaign reflects the orthodoxy that masculine and feminine identities are largely social constructs. That is the belief that has driven the re-shaping of education in this country and the US for decades: removing all boy connotations from Maths and the Sciences, and all girl connotations from arts, humanities and cooking... And when that didn't work, disallowing choice, as the naughty children continued to choose the 'wrong' (ie gender typical) subjects when allowed to do so - as they still tend to do when allowed (eg at University level). So the praxis has had little effect on getting girls into maths and the sciences, as was the avowed intention. It may have had a huge unintended side-effect, one could reasonably argue, in turning large numbers of boys off a feminised education altogether (parallels with the feminisation of liturgy in the Catholic Church are of course wholly inappropriate and should not even be considered).

So the orthodoxy (despite the evidence, one could argue) is that gender stereotyping and other 'nurture' factors determine, or at least strongly influence, gender identity.

EXCEPT when it comes to homosexuality (and various other things in the LGBT morass). These are of course innate and immutable. There is no possibility that, for example, gay teachers, or gay parents, or gay text books will alter, influence or confuse the gender identity of kids, nor that gay people are in fact socially constructed to feel as they do. No, no, no... that way heresy lies...

The Miseducation of Women

2011-12-12T20:16:00.002Z

I have just begun reading The Miseducation of Women, by James Tooley.

His fundamental thesis seems to be that the way in which we educate girls - treating them as the same as boys, and therefore inculcating in them expectations to be independent career women - causes demonstrable misery later in life and is fundamentally unjust.

Tooley is an academic, which, I suspect, makes this a brave book to have published, as his views will not be welcomed in academe...

I have only just started it, but can report that he writes extremely well, and I am enjoying it. Further reports to follow.

Even Trevor Phillips thinks they're nuts...

2011-12-11T18:20:00.002Z

Trevor Phillips is the chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

He has described the actions of the National Secular Society, about which I blogged here (Abuse in Bideford), as “nonsense on stilts”.

H/t Protect the Pope

Collect for the third Sunday of Advent: Gaudete Sunday

2011-12-11T09:56:00.004Z

This is the collect for the Third Sunday of Advent in the Extraordinary Form. It is also the prayer we say (this week) after singing O Come O Come Emmanuel around our Advent Wreath.

Bow down thine ear we beseech Thee O Lord to our prayer and by the brightness of thine Advent, lighten the darkness of our minds.

(This is corrected from a version I mistyped on first posting it!)

The Heresy of Understanding

2011-12-10T15:25:00.005Z

I was lying awake thinking about consubstantial (as one does).

In particular, I was thinking about all those who complain it is too hard a word to cope with, in the corrected translation of the Creed. Which led me to wonder whether they find the word transubstantiation too hard, too.

We are often told that it will put the young people off...

My experience is that most children love long words and esoteric words: once they have been explained to them. So I think that is largely bogus.

I also notice that many of the people who thus complain are happy to use the complex word Eucharist rather than the simple one Mass. They will cheerfully talk about the ambo and the narthex, where I might say the pulpit and the porch... So I think that the whole simplicity thing is a bit bogus too.

But if not bogus, I think it is worse. People talk as though we should have texts for the Mass that are readily understandable at first hearing by the uninitiated.

I think that is verging on heresy. At the heart of our Faith is mystery: truths about God too great for us to comprehend. At the heart of the Mass is mystery: the Mystery of Faith. To presume to understand it all is therefore nearly heretical.

That is not to say that we should not seek understanding. As we study, and pray, and meditate, and reflect, we are drawn into the mystery. We will never (this side of the grave) fully comprehend, but we may make progress.

But to imagine that we can have a language that makes the mystery clear, is to invite a clarification that misrepresents the mystery. And that, I fear, is what we have lived with for some decades.

That is part of the reason why, despite 40 years of Mass in a simple vernacular, people now have a worse, rather than better, understanding of the Mass. Forty years ago, you would never have had people talking about receiving 'the bread' and 'the wine'; now such talk is commonplace. Forty years ago, people fell to their knees if a priest walked by carrying the Blessed Sacrament; now they are as likely to turn their backs to chat with their neighbour.

So what I believe the new translation offers is a chance, not for easier understanding, but for deeper, truer understanding. If I am right, and that becomes apparent, then the next step should be a return to Latin: the traditional language of the Roman Rite - for then we shall realise that instant understanding of language is more a barrier to deep understanding than a help...

Lynette Burrows on School Sex Ed

2011-12-10T10:31:00.002Z

John Smeaton's blog carries the transcript of a talk by Lynette Burrows on Sex Education programmes in school. It is well worth a read. Here's a flavour: "Anyone who wants to talk dirty to little children is a danger to them."

Put nuns on the Pill

2011-12-10T09:48:00.006Z

Our friend Scout, ever keen to educate the Catholics of the world from his or her position of unique enlightenment, has drawn my attention to a report in the Lancet. Actually, he or she links to the Guardian, which is slightly easier perhaps, but the Lancet article may be found here.

The point is that some Australian researchers report a link between the celibate life of a nun and a higher risk of contracting breast, ovarian and uterine cancer. Further, they note that the contraceptive pill is reported to reduce such risks (though in the case of breast cancer, at least, there has been much contradictory reporting of evidence over the years, so the case is perhaps not quite so clear cut.)

Therefore, Catholic Nuns should be put on the Pill.

I have a few observations to offer:

One is that I can't help thinking that some of the motivation behind this reporting is anti-Catholic and slightly puerile: ho ho ho nuns on the Pill - that'll show the Vatican!...

A second is that if the Pill is taken as a bona fide medicine, by a celibate woman, and therefore with no chance of it acting as either a contraceptive or an abortifacient, it's probably a non-issue; just as if I use a condom as an insulating material in an electrical circuit (as happened in The Day of the Jackal, if I remember correctly), that is not a moral problem.

A third (and Scout will love this one) is that the whole argument is premised on the assumption that nuns will want to avoid disease and live longer and healthier lives. That is not an unreasonable assumption; but there are other possibilities. The celibate life is overtly and deliberately self-sacrificial (that is one of the principal reasons it is so derided). St Bernadette, for example, saw her vocation as to suffer, and was by no means unique in this. So it seems to me quite possible that some (a few? many? all?) nuns may be quite happy to accept the cup that their Lord is offering them when they swear to celibacy, even including an earlier death.

But for the average Guardian reader, I fear that will be entirely incomprehensible.

Abortion better for you than eating apples, study (almost) concludes...

2011-12-09T18:46:00.002Z

The ever-wonderful BBC has been trumpeting the news that a new study has shown that abortion has no worse effects on a woman than carrying a pregnancy to term.

Leave aside the effect on the child (death) and the effect on anyone else (siblings, father etc) for a moment.

Let's just examine that claim. Because even the BBC admit in their report: 'The scope of the review excluded reactions such as guilt, shame and regret - although these were considered important - and also assessments of mental state within 90 days of an abortion.'

Although these are important, we will exclude them. Why?

For a comprehensive list of studies reaching rather different conclusions, visit John Smeaton's blog.

The School's Verdict

2011-12-06T16:32:00.003Z

If you have been following the Keeping Mum Saga (see various previous posts...) you will be interested to know thatI got a very civil note from the Head of RE today. He has reviewed the film, agrees it is inappropriate and withdrawn it from the syllabus. There: that wasn't too painful, was it?

Now if only schools with a Catholic Ethos were so responsive...

Ant hits 21!

2011-12-06T07:08:00.002Z

This week we celebrate another milestone as Antonia turns 21. So that’s it: officially grown up. The first of our children to emerge at the other end from our slightly odd approach to parenting (at least by modern standards). So it is interesting to look back.

Ant is currently at University, where she is studying Maths to Masters level, and looks set to get a first class degree. She is also enjoying a lively social and sporting life. She also practices her Faith with commitment and energy, including co-founding the University’s pro-Life prayer group. She has a non-Catholic boyfriend who is teased by his friends because his girlfriend doesn’t sleep with him. She found a summer job in her first year and was so valued by her employers that they have asked her back every subsequent summer, increasing her pay each time.

Whilst I am (as you will have realised) very proud of her, I am not mentioning these things to boast, but rather because they are unexpected outcomes – at least according to the popular wisdom of the current culture.

I remember when we moved house, when she was 15. The headmaster of her new school was worried on learning that we do not have a television in the house, for religious reasons. He was concerned that we were raising her in a way that would be over-protective, leave her lacking the common ground with her peers to form effective social relationships and so on. By the time she left she had been voted by her peers as the girl they would like to have as head girl, and the head, who has the final say, interviewed her and two others and appointed her.

I have been told that by encouraging her to be modest, I was raising her in ‘a noxious environment’, in which ‘expressing her sexuality’ was ‘bad.’ Yet strangely, she is a mature, confident, and outgoing young lady, able to interact with men and women on equal terms and to have a long-term boyfriend on her terms.

So I stand by our approach, which may be counter cultural, but is actually a time-honoured method, built on the wisdom of generations and particularly on Catholic belief and practice.

Here’s a few things we did as we brought her up that may be at variance with societal norms:

We sat together as a family for our meals
We went for walks together on a regular basis
We didn’t have a TV
We read to the smaller children every night – a book worth reading
We allowed our kids to take a lot of risks (at the physical level) such as climbing trees, exploring the local countryside unsupervised, and taking up exciting hobbies and sports (rock climbing, sailing, etc)
We didn’t allow our kids to hang around in shopping centres or go to sleep-overs or parties where we don’t know and trust the parents concerned
We tried to ensure our kids have a lot of fun – more than their peers
We didn’t buy them much stuff – consumer toys etc
We encouraged them to pursue interests like music seriously
We (their parents) love each other and are committed to staying together no matter what…
We pray together every day

So I guess what I want to say is: dare to be different! It really can work!

The Rhetoric of Abortion (v)

2011-12-05T20:03:00.003Z

My more regular readers (or reader) will have noticed a pattern on this blog. Frequently I start a post, or series of posts, in one direction, and get distracted and end up digressing all over the place.

As on the blog, so in my life...

However, every now and then, I do try to return to my original intentions, so here is part 5 of my occasional series on the Rhetoric of Abortion.

And here is a fine example I came across on Mumsnet: And an aborted foetus is not a casualty. Because it's not a person. Because if it was a person, than its rights would conflict with those of the person carrying it. And so it's not a person until it leaves the woman's body.

I have to admit to being impressed by the elegance of the circular logic employed here. But the bit I want to focus on is that word foetus.

On the Mumsnet pages about dos and don'ts in pregnancy, you read early on: remember that unborn babies are remarkably tenacious. And so it goes on throughout the page. From the moment of conception, right through pregnancy, the (wanted) child is referred to as an unborn baby. Yet on the page debating abortion, it is suddenly a foetus, or an embryo.

This is not unique to Mumsnet, of course. The National Health Service plays the same trick: on the pregnancy advice pages, we read:

there are some foods you shouldn't eat during pregnancy because they could:

cause food poisoning, or
harm your unborn baby

Yet strangely, when we look at the abortion advice pages, we find:

Vacuum aspiration, or suction termination, is a procedure that uses gentle suction to remove the foetus from the womb.

Note not only the change from unborn baby to foetus, but also from 'your' to 'the.'

What is going on here? In both popular discourse (Mumsnet) and professionally written medical advice (NHS) the way something is described is conditioned entirely according to our intentions towards it.

If we seek to nurture it and look after it, it is your unborn baby. If we seek to kill it, it is the foetus.

How can the status of another life be defined by our attitudes towards it?

People get annoyed when one draws parallels between abortion and the Holocaust or slavery: yet here the parallel is very clear: we deny the humanity of the one we seek to oppress.

When challenged, pro-abortion advocates are quick to point out that embryo and foetus are the correct medical terms for the different stages of development; as indeed they are.

But we don't normally insist on the correct medical terms unless we have a reason to do so. We rarely talk about our cranium; or describe a pain in our abdomen. Head and stomach are the normal modes of discourse. So clearly, something is going on.

And my contention is that it is exactly analagous to the mother being shown an ultrasound of her baby (when it is wanted, and therefore a baby) but not of her foetus (when the intention is to kills it.)

It is what George Orwell so clearly articulated as double-think: the capacity to believe two contradictory things at the same time - and not notice that one is doing so. And that is the necessary piece on mental gymnastics that the medical profession has to perform, day after day: which is why I think that abortion is so profoundly damaging to the profession, as well as to everyone else involved.

So when you hear people talking about an embryo or a foetus, consider stopping the conversation in its tracks and insisting that this point is at least considered. After all, what are they afraid of: seeing the humanity of the unborn child on the ultrasound?...

Mass on Saturday Evening or Sunday Morning?

2011-12-04T11:36:00.004Z

Yesterday, Stuart of eChurchBlog tweeted (he's @eChurchBlog) I so much prefer to go to Mass on a Saturday evening than Sunday mornings...

I responded, somewhat tongue in cheek: But which does God prefer?... (Shades of the old traditionalist joke: you worship God as you want to, we'll worship Him as He wants us to...)

However, he is not one to leave it there, and my ducking his question about what I thought by saying that it's not my opinion which counts was not enough for him.

So I thought I'd better post on it: it will take a little longer than Twitter allows.

So what do I think? My instinct is that Sunday morning is the better time for Mass. That is the time-honoured practice of the Church and that alone carries a lot of weight for me.

I certainly understand that in cases of necessity, a Saturday evening Mass can mean that one can fulfil one's obligation when one might otherwise not be able to do so - and have indeed taken advantage of that innovation myself.

And I actively like Midnight Mass for Christmas or Easter.

I am also aware that today (and quite frequently) I am going to Mass on a Sunday afternoon, which again is not very traditional: however it is the only time on a Sunday when an EF Mass is celebrated within 60 miles of where I live.

But I think, if I am fair, that part of my disinclination (and I won't put it more strongly than that) to go to Saturday evening Masses, is that in my experience many who go then do so in order to leave Sunday free for other activities - and that does strike me as problematic. And clearly that is a prejudice based on a small sample, and does not by any means hold good for all who attend then. But, as I say, if I am to be honest, I think that is at least half of my reservation.

Collect for Second Sunday of Advent: Stir Up Sunday

2011-12-04T11:27:00.006Z

This is the collect for the Second Sunday of Advent in the Extraordinary Form. It is also the prayer we say (this week) after singing O Come O Come Emmanuel around our Advent Wreath.

Stir up our hearts, O Lord, to make ready the ways of thine only-begotten Son; and with minds undefiled to pay to thee the homage of our service.

The opening words lead to this being called Stir Up Sunday, (at least in our family - I have heard others have a different Stir Up Sunday). Anyway, it is the day to stir the Christmas Pudding mix...

Keeping mum about Keeping Mum

2011-12-03T08:23:00.003Z

It is now nearly three weeks since I wrote to Charlie and Dom's school about Keeping Mum.

I had a prompt and civil initial response: an answerphone message from the head of RE assuring me that he would look into it.

Charlie has now had two RE lessons since and it has not appeared again. But apart from his teacher asking Charlie if he agreed with me (he said he did) we have heard no more about it.

I was expecting a reply to my letter (and one may yet come: I do understand that teachers are very busy) but I am pleased with the outcome anyway; no prevarication, no demonising of me or Charlie, no attempt to justify the use of an inappropriate film - simply putting the matter right and carrying on.

Of course, this is not a school with a Catholic Ethos...

Abuse in Bideford

2011-12-02T08:46:00.004Z

Poor old Councillor Bone. His colleagues on Bideford Town Council have been forcing him to his knees, holding his hands together, and threatening to beat him up if he didn't say the Lord's Prayer. Today he goes to the High Court to seek an end to this practice.

Oh, hang on a second, I've just re-read that. In fact, the Councillors have been saying a prayer at the start of the Council meeting, in accordance with a time-honoured tradition (also observed in our own Parliament). There is no requirement for Councillor Bone (or anyone else) to be there, let alone participate; the register of those present at the meeting is taken after the prayer. However, this is so offensive to his sensibilities that he has made a bit of a fuss. The Council has considered his point of view and voted, twice, to maintain the practice. One might call that a democratic process.

BUT (ta-daa!) enter the National Secular Society, and Councillor Bone's terrible predicament is now to be resolved by the High Court.

I listened to Keith Porteous Wood, the Executive Director (now there's posh!) of the NSS on the radio, and there was something about the quality of his indignation and detestation of all things Christian that made me wonder... and sure enough 'Wood is in a civil partnership with Terry Sanderson, the president of the National Secular Society,' according to Wikipedia. (Well, that's cosy isn't it: they can discuss their vicitimisation over the morning latte.)

Somehow, militant secularism and the militant gay agenda often go hand in hand - and I know which I believe to be in the driving seat.

Mindfulness...

2011-12-01T07:53:00.005Z

I have been doing some follow-up reading after that stress management course I went on. (Perhaps I should reassure my concerned readers that I am not suffering from stress; I went on the course because my work involves working with people under great pressure and I was interested to learn how I and others might better support them).

One of the b0oks I am reading, recommended by someone recovering from a breakdown himself, was on mindfulness. It cites lots of research evidence that spending a short time in meditation each day has many and significant benefits with regard to health, resilience and happiness.

Needless to say, the meditations it offers are of a secular kind, but it does have the grace to acknowledge that this is ancient wisdom found in most serious religions.

The concept of mindfulness seems to be about living in the present moment, neither worrying about the past, nor the future. Regular practice of this actually changes the brain for the better, apparently, leading to the kind of serenity one sometimes meets in people who have.... spent a lot of time in meditation (who would have thought it?)

Of course, this is strong in the Catholic tradition; confession helps us to draw a line under past failings. And Our Lord has instructed us to pray for this day's daily bread - not for our pensions and a secure and wealthy retirement... 'Lord for tomorrow and its needs, I do not pray...'

But what struck me most was that the discipline of putting time aside for prayer each day (not rushing through prayer while driving to work, for example, as I sometimes do when time is tight) is very important; in particular, a mindful rosary. I find that the practice of inserting a short interjection after the Holy Name in each Ave is very helpful: one that keeps me mindful of the mystery I am praying. I can't remember where I first read about this, possibly St Louis de Montfort, but it is a wonderful practice.

And now I have the research to prove it.

One That Got Away...

2011-11-29T07:57:00.004Z

By modern medical standards, this child is a failure. She should have been identified and killed before birth.

Yet one can see the joy she brings to her mother's life - and doubtless countless others'.

Pause and say a prayer for the many others who were not so lucky, and for their mothers, many of whom will doubtless feel the knife twisted in their hearts as they read this story.

H/t John Smeaton.

Alma Redemptoris Mater

2011-11-27T21:08:00.001Z

Alma Redemptoris Mater, quae pervia caeli

Porta manes, et stella maris, succurre cadenti,

Surgere qui curat, populo: tu quae genuisti,

Natura mirante, tuum sanctum Genitorem

Virgo prius ac posterius, Gabrielis ab ore

Sumens illud Ave, peccatorum miserere.

V: Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariae
R: Et concepit de Spiritu Sancto

Mother of the Redeemer, who art ever of heaven 

The open gate, and the star of the sea, aid a fallen people, 

Which is trying to rise again; thou who didst give birth, 

While Nature marveled how, to thy Holy Creator, 

Virgin both before and after, from Gabriel's mouth 

Accepting the All hail, be merciful towards sinners.

(Tr Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman)

V: The angel of the Lord declared unto Mary
R: And she conceived by the Holy Spirit.

Celebrating Advent

2011-11-27T19:18:00.004Z

Although the first Christmas Trees have gone up in some houses in town, and indeed the town's Christmas decorations are up, we are just starting to celebrate Advent.

We always keep our Advent Celebrations and our Christmas Celebrations separate - though they are related, they are two different seasons of the Church's cycle.

So we mark Advent by saying our prayers around the Advent Wreath, singing O Come O Come Emmanuel and having a reading as we add another character to our Jesse Tree. We will also say the wonderful collect Arise in thy strength we beseech thee O Lord and come; from the dangers which threaten us because of our sins, be thy presence our sure defence, be thy deliverance our safety for ever more; and we'll sing the Alma Redemptoris Mater.

This is the pattern until Christmas Eve (the collect changes each week, of course: we use the Sunday collect from the Extraordinary Form of the Mass). Only then will we start to decorate the house, put up the tree and so forth.

Which means I've been out in the rain collecting holly for the wreath, up in the attic looking for the advent calendars, Jesse Tree book etc, and singing the Alma Redemptoris to myself throughout the day.

A Barbaric Suggestion

2011-11-25T13:05:00.003Z

Imagine that you are pregnant. You have carried twins nearly to term, and then the medics tell you that one of the twins may have a heart condition, which may be fatal, or may require several operations throughout his or her life.

You are likely to be extremely upset, probably overwhelmed by emotion.

Then the medics suggest that one option is to terminate - well not the pregnancy, obviously, that euphemism won't work here... - to terminate the twin with the heart condition (which has somehow changed from a possibility to a certainty in people's thinking).

What you most need, probably, is time. Time to adjust to the new situation, time to work through the storm of emotions, time to think about the future, time to consider what the medical indications really mean, with all their 'mays.'

What you cannot have is time: a decision is needed. If we are going to terminate we need to get on with it.

There is something barbaric about offering such a decision to someone at such a moment.

A poor woman in Australia was placed in that position. As a result of a decision she took, both of her children are now dead, and she probably doesn't even know if either of them actually had the suspected heart condition.

I am quite sure she is bitterly regretting that decision, and I have nothing but prayers and sympathy for her.

But the medics, who apparently are devastated at what they have done... what did they think they were doing as they injected poison into the heart of a baby capable of being born alive?

And how could they think that offering a woman in a state of shock such a choice under such pressures of time and emotion is a responsible or humane thing to do?

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei

Ora pro nobis.

Day of Reckoning?...

2011-11-24T21:03:00.003Z

Today was interesting. It was the day Charlie was scheduled to have RE, and following the initial prompt and courteous response from the school to my initial complaint, I had heard nothing.

So I was wondering whether they would continue showing Keeping Mum. I didn't think they would, but didn't know that for sure.

So I had talked it through with Charlie and agreed that if they did, he would have to excuse himself and go to the school library to work (referring the teacher to me, if there was a problem with that).

In the event, they did not show any more of it. Instead they had a period of revision. Charlie asked his teacher if he'd seen my letter (it had been addressed to the head of RE, not the individual teacher), and the teacher replied that he had. He asked Charlie if he felt the same as I did (I had told Charlie in broad terms the content of the letter, but he had not seen it). Charlie said that he did. And there the matter rests for the present.

I am sure I will receive a full response from the school in due course, but have to say that so far their response has been pretty good.

Tragic killing of 'wrong' twin

2011-11-24T12:32:00.002Z

The ever-wonderful BBC reports that doctors in Australia gave a lethal injection to a healthy unborn child, which was meant for its twin. The twin who was believed to have a congenital heart condition, was subsequently killed via an emergency caesarian section.

(Victoria) State Premier Ted Baillieu: "I don't think it's appropriate for anybody to draw any conclusions other than this is a horrible tragedy."

I disagree. I think there are many more conclusions we could appropriately draw. One is that doctors should not be killing children in utero.

Another is that the rush to say we should draw no conclusions is an indication of the complete moral bankruptcy of the philosophy of those who think this is anything other than barbaric.

A third is that the mother, and all involved, need our prayers.

Q: Down's Syndrome? A: Lethal Injection

2011-11-24T08:27:00.002Z

Both Fr Finigan and Rorate Caeli carry reports of the chilling and dispassionate advice to obstetricians and gynaecologists from their governing body, the Royal College, on the killing of unborn children who are suspected of abnormalities, by lethal injection prior to abortion, because, as the College puts it so clearly:failure to perform feticide could result in a live birth and survival, which contradicts the intention of the abortion.

I was listening to Wendy Savage talking on the Today programme a couple of days ago about the rise in births by Caesarian Section. She made the point that the research suggests that a lot of this is a result of defensive medicine: doctors fearing litigation.

Who can doubt that the same arises when there is any suspicion of any abnormality in an unborn child?

Who can doubt that doctors will not inform people when they are mistaken?

Who can doubt that many perfectly healthy children are killed and their parents never told?

Who can doubt that children with Down's Syndrome deserve extra love and care, not potassium cyanide?

Who can doubt that since the 1967 Abortion Act, medical ethics have taken a nose-dive?

Interesting article on Same Sex Adoption

2011-11-23T19:19:00.002Z

Mercatornet carries an interesting article by psychiatrist Rick Fitzgibbons on the risks of same-sex adoption, currently being conducted in the UK and the USA, driven by an ideology that places the wants of adults above the needs and rights of children. Dr Fitzgibbons cites plenty of research as well as his own clinical experience. The comments are worth reading, too.

H/t Protect the Pope

Catholic French Scouts, anyone?

2011-11-23T17:24:00.004Z

I have just received an email from Fr. Hervé Tabourin the leader of a scout troop from Riaumont. (It is fair to mention that the translation of the linked page to English is slightly idiosyncratic and not totally illuminating, but you get the idea)

Anyone who has done the Chartres Pilgrimage will remember the hugely impressive Riaumont scouts.

He is planning to bring a group to England and is looking for somewhere in the South East (between the Channel and London) for them to camp for Low Week (15 - 21 April 2012). [Have just checked my diary, and those dates, which he gives along with the description la semaine après Pâques, seem to be the week after Low Week; if you're interested I'm sure we can seek clarification...]

So if you know of anyone with a field (or large garden!) in that area who would welcome these traditional French Scouts, (eg if they've done the Chartres Pilgrimage) please contact him: prv@riaumont.net +336 74 34 85 29

If you have any questions, and do not feel up to dealing with these in French, feel free to forward them to me and I will happily liaise.

The School Responds

2011-11-22T07:53:00.004Z

I got home yesterday to find an answerphone message from the head of RE, to say that he had received my letter, was looking into it, and would get back to me. Prompt and courteous: just as I had expected.

I find, on re-reading my posts about the last time I had to write to the school, that I had not finished the story. In their written response, as I noted here, they assured me they would correct the text for next year.

In fact, they went much further: Dominique told me that the very next RE lesson, they were asked to take out their handouts and correct them, and had the reasons for the correction explained simply and clearly.

That is why I am optimistic about the outcome of the current issue. Their reasonableness, responsiveness, and genuine concern for parents' views and wishes are in marked contrast to some allegedly Catholic schools (or rather, 'schools with a strong Catholic ethos', as they prefer to call themselves), where the (soi-disant Catholic) teachers see the (Catholic) parents as the ideological enemy...

Why we don't homeschool...

2011-11-21T22:02:00.002Z

A comment in my comms box recently asked why we don't homeschool, which is an excellent question, and felt worthy of a post of its own.

My late father always used to say 'There are two reasons for everything: the good reason and the real reason.'

So I will be quite honest and say that the real reason we chose not to homeschool is because my wife point-blank refused to countenance the idea.

At the time, she wasn't Catholic; but even though she was received into the Church some 15 years ago, I think her refusal would be as strong.

However, with hindsight, there are some good reasons for not homeschooling (as well as many excellent reasons for homeschooling - some of the best Catholic young people I know have been homeschooled, and all that stuff about not being socialised is rubbish, in my experience).

However, I do think that there is some value in having children in schools who are Catholic; it opens the eyes of friends and teachers - and even sometimes those who are hostile to them - to the fact that it there are still believing Catholics about.

Ant and Bernie have both survived school and gone onto University with their Faith intact - and one of Bernie's friends is now keen to convert.

Charlie and Dominique both seem secure in their Faith, at present; and as regular readers will know, I have recently had to take the opportunity to educate their school about some basic issues...

So while I was disappointed at Anna's refusal to consider homeschooling, if I had my time again, I am not sure I would want to homeschool: for our kids, the other option has worked, and possibly benefitted others beyond our family.

Here we go again...

2011-11-19T19:30:00.004Z

I had been following the saga at Bonus Pastor Catholic College with some interest, initially via James Preeces' blog, and subsequently via Bonus Pastor Exposed.

And then on Friday, Charlie came home to tell me that they'd started watching Keeping Mum in RE, as they were going to write an essay on the treatment of Religion in the Media. (see Bonus Pastor Exposed for clips showing how unsuitable Keeping Mum is - but beware: it is unsuitable! Alternatively, my letter below itemises why I disapprove.)

Charlie and Dominique are not at a Catholic School, as there is not one locally (and our experiences at the Catholic School the bigger girls went to before we moved would not make me rush to another - but that's another story...). Nonetheless, I feel it is incumbent on me to point out that we do not believe Keeping Mum is something he (or any other adolescents) should be watching at school.

To their credit, the RE Dept have been very understanding and responsive when I have raised concerns in the past (see here for my concerns and here for their response)

So here's the first draft of the inevitable letter:

Dear Mr X

I am writing in my capacity as critical friend to the RE department - and also concerned parent.

I have learned from Charlie that his class has just started to watch Keeping Mum, with a view to studying how religion is portrayed in the media.

I have serious concerns about this film being shown in school:

It blasphemes the Holy Name of Jesus

It makes repeated use of the F*** word (and does both of these in a context of casual irreverence)

It shows a young woman interrupted having sex in a van; showing her topless, and again being watched by a voyeur as she undresses, again showing her topless

It shows the mother being seduced by her golf instructor, including unedifying lines such as: ‘You want our First Time to be in a car: that’s the kind of thing my daughter does, for f***’s sake.’

It has an ethos of sexual behaviour that is casual and promiscuous (‘And I know why - you’re not getting any’ says the daughter to the mother.)

From our perspective as parents trying to raise our children to be virtuous, all that poses serious problems, breaching as it does several commandments, and the traditional practices of custody of the eyes and custody of the ears, which are how we train our children in the virtue of purity. In Catholic theology, human sexuality is sacred.

I know that ours is an unfashionable, and even counter-cultural, approach, but looking at our children, I don’t think it has damaged them too much: to be honest, I am proud of the way they are turning out.

I recognise that the children may hear this sort of language in the playground, though I lament the fact. I am sure that it would not be countenanced in the classroom, any more than a girl appearing topless would be. So I fail to understand why this is appropriate in a film shown to the students.

I have been told that it is a recommended resource for the syllabus; but that, in my understanding, does not make it either compulsory or desirable.

I suspect that if you asked other Christian parents whether they wanted their adolescent kids to watch blasphemous, profane and sexually titillating material, some others would have reservations.

But we were never consulted or informed, and perhaps that is my deepest concern. If the teaching staff really deem this suitable, their project for our kids is very different from ours: and I really don’t want to have to start quizzing Charlie and Dominique about what they’ve been taught in order to undo damage (as I see it) that may have ben perpetrated by well-intentioned but (in my view) misguided teachers.

I have every confidence that you will take our concerns seriously, and understand them, and look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely

I am confident that the response will be swift and courteous - and it may well be positive. It could scarcely be worse that Bonus Pastor's...

Faith Schools are the Answer, not the Problem

2011-11-18T12:12:00.002Z

I just came across this post by Sarah Johnson posted in 2007 (because she has just added a further note about the same issue to her rarely-updated blog). It is well-worth reading, in the light of the shenanigans at the Vaughan, and now Coloma Convent (the subject of her more recent post).

She makes a strong case for the validity of considering parental volunteering as part of the selection criteria, and points out how diocesan-imposed changes or challenges are largely based on perception rather than reality.

Sola Scriptura Alert

2011-11-17T08:48:00.003Z

I saw this on the Facebook page of a friend of a friend, and love it!

Feeling stressed? Try Faith, Hope and Charity

2011-11-16T07:46:00.006Z

I attended an interesting training course the other day on stress management. As well as looking at reducing the pressures we work under, we were encouraged to increase our resilience - which was defined as our ability to cope with pressure without a stress response.

The first thing discussed was the obvious need to look after oneself physically (diet, exercise, rest, reducing caffeine and alcohol intake etc.) when the pressure is on.

But then we discussed the research on what was called 'positive affect'- a sort of emotional and cognitive optimism.

It struck me that most of the evidence supported the three theological virtues.

Faith was highlighted by the need to find meaning - to have something to believe in. Viktor Frankl was cited, the Austrian therapist who lived through the Nazi concentration camps and wrote Man's Search for Meaning, to explain how some people managed to hold onto their humanity in the midst of the brutalising regime. Other examples were cited (Clarence Adoo, for example, a world class trumpeter who was paralysed from the head down in a car accident, and attributes his positivity to his faith as a Salvationist).

Hope was the leitmotif of the day: a well-founded optimism seems very important. One interesting study looked at nuns, who on entering their convent some 50 years ago, had written a letter to explain why they wanted to be nuns. All had Faith, of course, but some letters were highlighted as having lots of 'positive affect indicators' which I heard as hope-filled; whilst others were more negative on that scale (young women focusing on atonement for past - or others' - wrongs). The study said there was a clear co-relation between the hope-filled letters and a nun's long-term health and longevity - decades later.

Charity was also important: again and again the research evidence showed that people who maintained good relationships with others, who went out of their way to perform acts of gratuitous kindness, who thought well of others and so on were more resilient under pressure. Those who withdraw into themselves are less so.

Clearly, from a Catholic point of view, there is much more that could be said (and in terms of the nuns' study, I am also aware of the saintly nuns who have seen their vocation as a vocation to suffer). Nonetheless, I was interested how the secular research did seem to coalesce around these three virtues, as well as a prudential view of physical well-being.

Yet More on NDC and Life

2011-11-13T20:39:00.002Z

I have just caught up with Joseph Shaw's philosophy blog, where there is a very interesting post about a discussion between philosophers and Catholic NDC counsellors.

I won't summarise it here, as I think summarising anything a living philosopher writes is a risky proposition!

Scout's Honour

2011-11-13T18:09:00.003Z

A relatively new arrival on the Catholic comment scene, Scout has been putting himself or herself around a bit, with comments on many blogs, great and small. There seems to be a slight disjunct between the Scout of the comments box, who presents as a fairly reasonable and polite commenter, and the Scout of the blog, who, err... does not.

Wading into any strongly stated Catholic views (let alone those from the nutty fringes) Scout is not above hyperbole and Sun-style headlines him- (or her-) self.

However, despite all these efforts, Scout’s site does not attract the volume of traffic he or she doubtless wants, so I though I’d run a trailer here, as I’m sure my readers will appreciate Scout’s particular style and approach.

In the interests of absolute transparency (that’s my value, not Scout’s) I should point out that all that follows is written by me: the style alone is borrowed from Scout.

Hardline Catholic Bishop Hits Children: Parents Look On with Approval!

Yesterday at the ultra-Catholic St James’s Spanish Place, the Uber-traditionalist Latin Mass Society organised Confirmation according to the now-discredited old-fashioned liturgy.

That involved the children being confirmed being physically held down by their sponsors, while the hardline bishop hit each in turn on the cheek!

Given that physical punishment is now outlawed in our schools, that some imams and madrassas are being investigated for using physical punishment, it is extraordinary that the Catholic extremists still think they can get away with this! Do they not know that the world has moved on, and it is no longer acceptable to slap children?

We would encourage the children to bring an action of assault against the hardline bishop, John Sherrington, against their so-called sponsors who were materially co-operating with the abuse, and against their parents who were sat supine in the pews, watching with approval as this barbaric ritual progressed.

For more in this illuminating, expressive and insight-filled style, do rush over to Scout's place, which is dedicated to exposing Catholic lunacy, prejudice and hypocrisy on the web. You'll even find a tag with my name...

Dominique's confirmation

2011-11-13T14:45:00.003Z

The confirmation yesterday went very well. Unfortunately Bishop Hopes was ill, but we were blessed that newly consecrated Bishop Sherrington agreed to step in at the last minute.

Ant and Bernie had both escaped from their respective Universities for the day, and we had travelled down to London early that morning (up at 5.00...) and had walked to St James' via various pleasant London Squares and Oxford Street, as the girls had some shopping to do...

A countercultural aunt joined us for the confirmation, and the reception and lunch afterwards.

The confirmation itself was accompanied by some lovely music, and followed by Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, with Frs Southwell and Finigan (who has some pictures on his blog) joining the bishop.

As last time, I was disappointed in the demeanour and behaviour of some of the congregation. Many chatted vivaciously in the Church before the ceremonies began, even while others were on their knees praying; many entered and left pews, and crossed the central aisle, with no genuflection to the Blessed Sacrament. Some stood all the way through Benediction. And immediately afterwards, many were chatting vivaciously again in the Church - despite the fact that we had the hall available for our reception and socialising. One expects a degree of reverence at LMS organised events; whilst there were many behaving appropriately, it was disappointing and distracting that so many were not.

After a pizza, we spent a pleasant few hours wandering round London seeing the sights: St James' Palace, Buckingham Palace, the park, Trafalgar Square, and then a half hour or so in the National Gallery, before heading back to the station. By the time we were on the train we were all pretty tired, so the trip home was somewhat quieter than the trip down.

But a great day, particularly with the reception of a sacrament by Dominique; and that's our last confirmation till the grandchildren start to arrive...

New Director of Catholic Education

2011-11-11T17:43:00.006Z

The Catholic Herald reports that Oona Stannard has resigned from her role as Director of the Catholic Education Service of England and Wales (CESEW), for personal reasons.

I hope that she has not got health problems, and wish her well; but I cannot pretend that I am sorry to see her go. The CESEW has signally failed to fulfil its mission to promote Catholic education. Instead it has overseen schools that are scarcely worthy of the label Catholic, and negotiations that were more capitulations vis-a-vis an anti-Catholic political class. To add insult to injury, we were then told these negotiations had ben successful.

Let us hope and pray that Fr Marcus Stock, who is taking over on a temporary basis, has the desire, wisdom and courage to put CESEW back on track. I understand that that is likely to be the case...

A Big Day...

2011-11-11T17:22:00.003Z

Tomorrow is a big day: we're off to London for Dominique's Confirmation (Bishop Alan Hopes, St James's Spanish Place, traditional rite).

It doesn't seem two years since Charlie's confirmation, though on reflection a lot has changed. We now have two daughters joining us from their respective universities for the day, for example.

But some things never change: the booklet produced by the LMS (at least the one sent in advance) is as makeshift as ever: I rather hope they'll pull something rather more worthy out of the bag tomorrow.

And of course the important stuff doesn't change. The rite itself will be almost identical, kicking off with the Veni Creator Spiritus, the initial prayers, the Confirmation itself (complete with the blow to the cheek) the Veni Sancte Spiritus, and so on. Different bishop, and different sermon, I dare say, but the rest will be the same as it was for Charlie, Bernie, Ant, my parents, and generations who preceded them...

Remember all those being confirmed in your prayers, and also Bishop Hopes, to whom we are all most grateful.

Another statement of belief from Bonus Pastor

2011-11-11T08:55:00.002Z

From their current newsletter

Reflection

We believe that Jesus died and rose again, so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have died believing in him.

Ref: 1 Thessalonians 4.14

Well, kudos, I suppose for saying something about belief that relates to Christianity, and referring to the Bible.

Except, (or is it me?), this seems to promote a Sola fide (ie Lutheran) interpretation...

Save us from a Catholic Ethos...

2011-11-11T07:57:00.002Z

Why is it that when I hear the words 'a Catholic Ethos,' in relation to a school, I shudder?

It seems to me that they are weasel words. They are trying to do two things at once. On the one hand, they are trying to suggest to devout Catholic parents that the school is a Catholic School. On the other, they are trying to suggest to parents who are not so keen on the Catholic Faith that religion won't be shoved down their children's throats.

It seems to me that they indicate a retreat from the mission of a Catholic School, which by definition must be to educate their pupils to be saints: to teach them the Faith, in ways which accord with the Faith, and to educate them more broadly to discover and fulfil their vocations.

If that is the primary purpose of a Catholic School, which I take to be axiomatic, then it is hard to see why showing children videos which are occasions of sin, examples of immorality and contain obscene and blasphemous language can be considered 'appropriate' (or as an unreconstructed traditionally minded Catholic like me would say, right). See my previous post for the details.

So consider a school which not only shows such videos, but defends the practice and then tries scare tactics ("For security reasons we advise you not to access the website as we believe that it could compromise your account") to stop parents finding out what is going on. Reflect on that remarkable sentence for a second. It is the only place on the front page of their www site where they believe anything - and it is patently rubbish (and I suspect that they know that: the phrase 'terminological inexactitude' springs to mind). Yet they profess to believe it, while they express no Catholic belief at all: but, of course, the school has a "strong Catholic ethos."

QED.

Trouble in Lewisham

2011-11-10T21:33:00.003Z

I wasn't quite sure what to make of the goings-on at Bonus Pastor as reported by James Preece. Clearly the videos featured on the linked www site were inappropriate for Catholic RE, but I always wonder who is behind these protests and how nutty they are...?

Then I discovered that at least one of those involved is Greg Clovis. Moreover that he had been accused of assault.

Now, I have met Greg (many years ago at Walsingham), and know of his work and reputation. Far from being a nutter, he is a brave, intelligent and committed Catholic and a stalwart of the pro-life movement in this country. Any suggestion that he assaulted anyone strikes me as implausible in the extreme - and that is what the police have decided too.

So have a look at the protest www site, and then, if you believe that the videos are inappropriate for a Catholic school, leave a word of support there, and drop the school and the diocese a note (all the details are on the www site).

It is time to Stand Up for Ourselves: More from the Thomas More Legal Centre

2011-10-31T17:03:00.005Z

Here is the text of the document that accompanied the letter quoted in my previous post:

IT IS TIME TO STAND UP FOR OURSELVES

A Catholic Mental Health Worker has been sacked by the NHS for gross misconduct. What was her offence? Treating elderly patients with callous disregard? Physically abusing mental patients? Ignoring patients who cried out for water? No, it was none of these. The charge against her is that she ‘distributed material which individuals may find offensive’.

Her ‘gross misconduct’ in fact arose from an amicable discussion with a colleague, NOT a patient, who worked as a receptionist organising abortion appointments. In the course of which she handed over the booklet Forsaken in which five women recount their experience of abortion and the mental problems they suffered afterwards. The colleague did not object to receiving the book and indeed is not being called as a witness by the NHS. The booklet contained no graphic images, and it was never suggested that it should be given to patients. The NHS objects to it because the booklet presents a ‘religious view’ of abortion, because one of the women talking about how she now views her Abortion regards it as a sin. Is the expression of a religious view now a sacking offence in Britain?

The Mental Health Worker’s case is being fought at the Central London Employment Tribunal on November 15^th. Her legal representation is being provided by the Thomas More Legal Centre. In addition, we are planning to bring a case against the NHS in the County Court under the Human Rights Act for failure to respect the nurse’s right to freedom of expression, and her right to freedom of religion. Winning such a case would set an important precedent in defending the rights of Catholics to discuss their faith and beliefs with colleagues without fear

The Thomas More Legal Centre has a strong track record of dealing successfully with similar cases of discrimination through quiet representation of clients’ interests to employers who may have misinterpreted the law and failed to respect freedom of religion. The Centre has for example successfully represented a Catholic trainee Doctor who was told he would not be allowed to qualify unless he referred patients for Abortions, and also successfully represented two Catholic Nurses who were moved to an Abortion Clinic against their wishes. It has done this voluntary legal work supported by very modest funds to cover inescapable expenses of the charity. The Trustees have always felt that they should not make any public appeal for funds for the charity until a case arose which would have to go to court.

That time has now come. We are appealing for help from everyone who believes in the freedom for Catholics to say what they believe and keep their jobs. We need funds to meet the costs of legal representation and, as there are no certainties however strong the case, to cover the risk of County Court costs being awarded against our client (which could be up to £25,000). And we need prayer.

The Thomas More Legal Centre is pursuing the case in the confidence that the Catholic community will come together to support this Mental Health Worker. Because this is not just an injustice being done to an individual, it is a threat to the freedom of the whole Catholic community to express its beliefs.

Donations can be made by cheque (made out to Thomas More Legal Centre) to The Treasurer, Thomas More Legal Centre, Palmyra Chambers, 46 Legh Street, Warrington WA1 1UJ; or by bank transfer to Yorkshire Bank, 34 Princes Street, Stockport, Cheshire, SK1 1RE; sort code 05-09-33, account no. 43102195 (Thomas More Legal Centre). If you are a UK tax-payer making a gift by cheque, please send a signed statement with your name and address asking for the donation to be treated as Gift Aid.

Thank you for standing up for Catholic freedom.

Richard Kornicki CBE

Chairman of Trustees
--

As I pointed out in my previous post, you can also donate via their www site.

Support Thomas More Legal Centre

2011-10-31T15:41:00.006Z

I received this letter, via a friend, which I am delighted to publicise. The Thomas More Legal Centre do fantastic work on behalf of us all.

Dear Friends,

Please see the announcement below which will be covered by the Catholic press this week.

In brief, a Catholic mental health nurse has lost her job because, in a professional discussion with a colleague, she made available a booklet providing case histories of the mental health consequences of abortion. The booklet was deemed to be 'religious' and she was dismissed for 'distributing materials which some might find offensive.

The nurse's case is being supported at an Employment Tribunal by the Thomas More Legal Centre, of which I am the Chairman; it will be heard on 15th November. We also intend to bring a case in the County Court arguing a breach of her right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

This is not an isolated problem. An unrelated case reported last week concerned a man demoted for saying on his facebook page that he thought new laws allowing civil partnerships on religious premises were 'an equality too far'. His public sector employer deemed this a breach of their diversity policies and moved him as a disciplinary measure from a £37k post to one earning £21k per annum.

If we do not take action, and establish some legal judgements setting precedents, the ability to express any Catholic moral view will effectively become unlawful.

Please help if you can, either by making a donation, or by offering a pledge against the need to meet any legal costs that might be awarded against us if we fail. Please forward this message to as many people as you think may be interested in helping, and please put it on any blogs you may be running. Please pray for our success.

With many thanks,

Richard Kornicki
Chairman, Thomas More Legal Centre

You can find out more - and donate of course - at their www site Prayers are also essential; perhaps in particular through the intercession of their patron, whom I understand to be the only member of the English Bar ever to have been canonised...

The Rhetoric of Abortion (iv)

2011-10-30T18:43:00.004Z

The last couple of posts have actually been a digression. As so often, what I thought interesting and important was largely uncommented on by my intelligent and forebearing readers (and I always like to assume on these occasions that qui tacet consentire videtur - not that I have any grounds for so thinking, but it is so much more appealing to my vanity to do so...) and a passing comment generated the debate; and ever fond of digressions, I willingly allowed myself to digress...

But what I had originally intended to do, and the task to which I return now, is to examine some of the slogans used by those with whom I disagree.

Let us start with 'Every child a wanted child.'

It sounds so right, so self-evidently unarguable: but in fact I believe it to be flawed both in theory and practice.

In practice, we find a generation that has grown up believing this - or at least having it rammed down its throat - has been a generation arguably unparalleled in its poor treatment of children.

Parents deprive children of stable family life in the interests of self- fulfillment, liberation, or lust. Parents view children as fashion accessories, or lifestyle choices, and treat them accordingly: parade them when it is desirable to do so, and park them out of the way (in front of the TV, with the child minder, at the nursery...) when they are no longer needed to be shown. Parents shack up with other adults, not related to their children, exposing them to a high risk of abuse (for that is what the studies show, when they say most child abuse occurs in the home: most is at the hands of a parent's lover who is not the natural parent of the children - and a short reflection on the emotional dynamics of such dysfunctional households will reveal why that may be the case).

This practical reality flows from one of the theoretical flaws of the slogan. To proclaim that 'every child should be a wanted child' puts children and our relationship with them into the wrong category in our thinking. Children are not objects, to be wanted (or not), like handbags or iPads. Children are blessings, gifts, to be cherished and for which we should be grateful. We should not think that we are in a position to have an opinion (wanted or not wanted) about them. If we are married, that is a vocation to parenthood, in the natural way of things. If we have no such vocation, we should not behave, sexually, as though we have.

Another theoretical flaw is the conflation of the notion of a 'wanted' pregnancy with a wanted child. Many a pregnancy that was, at least initially, an unpleasant surprise (though again even that betrays a flawed way of thinking) has produced a child who is loved and valued. But the abortion industry thrives on hiding that truth.

So next time you hear that slogan, take the time to unpick it and expose the flawed thinking behind it - and in particular educate the young about this: for I think it will be our children's generation who will sort out this terrible business.

The Rhetoric of Abortion (iii)

2011-10-30T07:59:00.004Z

Continuing the discussion on the rhetoric of abortion...

I have been characterised as wanting to sit and have a nice cup of tea and a cosy chat with abortionists. That is not quite what I was saying (though I have once had a fairly lengthy conversation in the street outside a clinic with one...). But in discussing rhetoric, I was thinking more about our declamations in the public square: when we are broadcasting (whether by internet, press, poster, tv campaign...)

Who is our audience when we proclaim something in the public square?

I think there are several:

Our fellow pro-lifers (and Left Footer, I think, made the point about the need to rally the troops - which is I think the most persuasive need for strident rhetoric);

The undecided masses, particularly those who have not thought much about the issue;

The politicians, who may have a position or may blow with the political wind;

Our ideological opponents;

Women who have had an abortion;

Women who may be tempted (currently or at some time in the future) to have an abortion;

The young, who may have a position, or may not - but are I think a different category from the undecided adult masses;

The medical professionals engaged directly or indirectly in the abortion business.

When one considers that complexity, then perhaps once more we can consider how appropriate demonising rhetoric is. (And remember it is that, precisely, which I am questioning - I have no problems with calling abortion what it is: the killing of unborn children. My problem is with calling those who do it murderers).

And there's another consideration: what does it do to us?

Some while ago, Larry D, over at Acts of the Apostasy, launched his Adopt a Priestess project. Since I have been praying daily for a specific woman who thinks she is a Catholic priest, my own attitudes have shifted. Not on the inadmissability of women to the priesthood - but on how I view the deluded women. Whilst they may be strident, hostile to most of what the Church is and does and so on, I see that they are victims of Satan's deception, and that for any one of them Christ chose to hang on a tree, in the hope that they would accept redemption. I therefore launched the Adopt an Abortionist idea; with the same ends in mind.

So before calling someone a child murderer, perhaps we should pause and pray the Our Father, and consider how our Father - the abortionist's father and mine - would want us to speak of the abortionist in the public square, and to what end.

The Rhetoric of Abortion (ii)

2011-10-24T08:29:00.003+01:00

As concerned human beings, our order of priority of concern in the case of abortion is typically:

1) the unborn child, an innocent, whose life may be ended prematurely merely because of other peoples’ attitude towards him or her (‘unwanted’)

2) the mother, who may well be in state of extreme distress, and

3) (if at all) the doctors and other medical staff involved.

But I wonder if, as Catholics, it should not be reversed. For whilst saving innocent lives is important, saving souls is more so; and the soul of the innocent unborn child is not in peril. The soul of the mother may be, of course, but the subjective guilt and responsibility may be largely (or entirely) mitigated by the existence of external pressures (and internal ones, too); but the souls of the doctors and medical staff seem to me to be in most danger: they do this regularly, which risks a real hardening of heart.

We know that is not irreversible, either; both from first principles (there are no limits to God’s grace) but also in reality: consider Bernard Nathanson and the many other doctors, nurses and clinic staff who have done a 180 degree turn on the issue of abortion.

Bearing all that in mind, perhaps we should think carefully about our own intentions, and, to come back to the point of this post, our rhetoric...

Always remembering that the real enemy is Satan, who was a liar from the start and a murderer to boot; and anything we do which colludes with his agenda is outlawed a priori.

The Rhetoric of Abortion

2011-10-22T18:01:00.003+01:00

I am pretty familiar with the rhetoric of abortion - you know the kind of thing:

A woman’s right to choose

Keep your rosary away from my ovaries

My body - my right to choose

Imposing your morality on me

Every child a wanted child

I’m not pro-abortion but I am pro-choice

However, I encountered a less frequently-heard one the other day, which I thought worthy of comment (I may re-visit some of the others in future posts). The one I want to look at today is that by opposing abortion, I am ‘forcing women to carry a pregnancy to term.’

I suppose I am, yes. In precisely the same way that by preventing my kids from committing suicide, I am forcing them to stay alive - and what’s worse, to die either a violent death, as the result of an accident, by illness, or by old age. How cruel of me!

We need to see beyond the rhetoric and be ready to expose the fallacious thinking that underpins it: in this case that carrying a pregnancy to term is in some sense a bad thing; and that allowing a natural process to take its course - and disallowing a deliberate intervention to change that - is in some way forcing something on someone.

But by the same token, we need to be careful of our rhetoric. We must make our case clearly, robustly and unapologetically, but rhetoric that simply demonises others (‘child murderer’, for example) will neither convince them nor third parties: and is in breach of charity, as it makes an assumption about their knowledge, free will, active intention etc that we are not entitled to make.

Disobedient Laity

2011-10-21T20:56:00.004+01:00

Along with the new translation, we have had the re-introduction of some gestures and the reiteration of others.

Our parish priest has reminded people several times of the obligation to make a sign of reverence before receiving; he has preached on the triple striking of the breast during the confiteor, and reminded people that they should be bowing their heads at the et incarnatus est in the Credo.

Yet, the vast majority of parishioners do none of these things.

Why is that?

Listen to the Children

2011-10-20T07:55:00.006+01:00

Children, we are told, want more and better sex education. That is presented as an irrefutable argument by 'progressive' campaigners.

And yet, in every survey ever, children do not want their parents to divorce. Do we hear the 'progressives' campaigning to restrict or outlaw divorce?

Could it be that people listen to - and value - children's views only when they coincide with their pre-determined agenda?

There's another problem too: children - like the rest of us - tend to want things that will make them feel good in the short term. But a parent who succumbs to a child's request for chocolate instead of sandwiches for their packed lunch is not a good parent. We need to listen to children, but to make adult decisions.

A toddler may really believe that sweet food is better for him than savoury: our job is to educate his understanding to conform to reality. A teenager may really believe that her crush on her boyfriend is love. Our job remains the same. A fourteen-year old 'coming out' may really believe he is mature and understands himself. Our job remains the same. A young woman facing an unplanned pregnancy may really believe that an abortion is her right, that her unborn child is no more than a part of her body that can be removed, and that will make everything the same as it was before. Our job remains the same.

Otherwise we end up with adults who really believe that what they want (at a moment in time) and what is right are the same thing - a common version of that being that a divorce is the best thing for their children, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Good News from Europe (for once)...

2011-10-18T19:21:00.003+01:00

"Europe’s top court has banned patenting any stem-cell process that involves destroying a human embryo."

The ruling also produced what looks like a good definition, too, of the “human embryo” as meaning "any human ovum after fertilisation, any non-fertilised human ovum into which the cell nucleus from a mature human cell has been transplanted, and any non-fertilised human ovum whose division and further development have been stimulated by parthenogenesis".

While the judgement does not go far enough (destructive experiments on human embryos are still permitted) it is certainly a step in the right direction.

H/t Catholic Voices.

The Non-Judgemental Fallacy

2011-10-16T16:55:00.002+01:00

The much vaunted 'virtue' of being Non-Judgemental is of course fallacious and self-contradictory. To adopt a non-judgemental approach (say to counselling) is to make a judgement that such an approach is appropriate, is likely to be helpful, is probably better than a judgemental approach.

Further, it is nearly always, in practice, a pretence. People are happy being non-judgemental about the issues they do not feel strongly about. But if someone were proposing murder, re-introducing slavery, setting up racially discriminating schools, canonising Hitler... would a non-judgemental approach be sustained? I suspect not. So what one really says in adopting a non-judemental approach is that in this case, by my values, the stakes are not very high.

Moreover it rests on unproven, and potentially flawed premises: that the free and autonomous choice of an individual is the best in any situation. But who can say that a woman considering aborting her child (for example) is acting free from external pressures? Or even that she is, in the truest sense, 'of sound mind' when she is in shock at discovering she is unexpectedly pregnant? There is plenty of research on the impact of such shocks on people's ability to think clearly. And even if she is free from any pressure, and of completely sound mind, if her decision involves taking the life of someone else, how can one, morally, refrain from passing a judgement on that decision, and (in most circumstances) communicating that judgement to her. Such silence is complicit and a failure of charity.

Finally, it is probably a lie. It implies that all outcomes are of equal merit; and that an individual has the right - and indeed the ability - to take decisions individually regardless of the impact on others.

The Christian approach has always been different. Of course we listen with charity to people in distress. We may well help them to express and think about their crisis through questions and paraphrasing, and the other tools of the skilled listener. We strive not to judge them, their motivations or the state of their soul. But we do make judgements on actions, proposed and real, and those judgements are based not on our preferences and prejudices, but on the teachings of Christ and His Church. And in most cases, if we are in conversation about such issues, we have a moral duty to help the other party understand those judgements.

Enculturated Sign of Peace

2011-10-16T10:48:00.001+01:00

People sometimes think that I do not offer the Sign of Peace, when I attend Mass in the Ordinary Form. They are quite mistaken. However, as turning and shaking people's hands, at that point in the Mass, would be quite alien to my traditional Catholic culture, I have enculturated it.

I kneel and adore, praying that the adoration of the Body and Blood of Our Lord on the altars of the world may be a sign of peace to the whole world (thrice).

Non-judgemental

2011-10-15T20:10:00.005+01:00

Following a link from James Preece's blog to a thought-provoking piece by Theodore Dalrymple, and then another link from there, I came upon another Dalrymple piece, The Rush from Judgement. For all those who think that being non-judgemental is the ultimate virtue, I think this is essential reading. Being Non-judgemental is appropriate in some very specific situations. But fundamentally, as Dalrymple puts it (after some powerful testimonies from his experience as a doctor), "It is the judgment that, in the words of a bitter Argentinean tango, "todo es igual, nada es mejor": everything is the same, nothing is better. This is as barbaric and untruthful a doctrine as has yet emerged from the fertile mind of man."

Great news from the Vaughan

2011-10-13T15:41:00.007+01:00

The Vaughan School today announced the appointment of Paul Stubbings as headmaster. Mr Stubbings has been at the Vaughan for more than 20 years, most recently as deputy head, and has the confidence of parents and a demonstrable commitment to the Vaughan's distinctive Catholic ethos. This will be hugely reassuring to parents and bodes well for the future.

H/t Linen on the Hedgerow where you can find the full story and formal announcement.

Deo Gratias!

Under one kind (again)...

2011-10-11T13:08:00.004+01:00

Fr Z reports on the latest developments: Bishop Morlino of Madison asks his priests to move towards a rarer distribution under both kinds, with reasons, here.

As Fr Z says: brick by brick...

The National Catholic Fishwrap throws a nutty (as Fr Z so eloquently puts it) here.

As I say: the knees jerk as predicted...

Why I feel strongly about this, here.

Sexual Identity and Desire

2011-10-10T18:42:00.001+01:00

Fascinating post on Sexual Identity and Desire over at Joyful Papist. Interesting comments thread, too.

Under One Kind...

2011-10-10T17:52:00.004+01:00

A few weeks ago I was cheering because the bishop of Phoenix was restricting the number of occasions on which the laity could receive Holy Communion under both kinds (in accordance with Canon Law).

But I didn't make it clear why I was cheering.

There are several reasons I object to the change whereby communion under both kinds became common amongst the laity in Europe and the USA, and prefer the traditional practice in the Western Church to the modern practice. (Let's leave the East out of this - beyond saying I think interfering with their time-honoured practice would be a bad idea too!)

Here are some:

The reasons I have been given for the change from the traditional practice strike me as largely bogus;

The change also seems to me to be part of a larger agenda, with a trend (towards less reverence) that I think has been profoundly damaging;

The change has been used to engineer a number of other changes I dislike (eg queuing and standing for Holy Communion, proliferation of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion);

The change has resulted in all the faithful (or at least all who receive under both kinds) handling the Sacred Vessels - and these are now treated, more often than not, as merely some more cups to wash after Mass;

The change is a huge part of the hermeneutic of discontinuity: jettisoning whatever our forefathers did in favour of any novelty dreamed up by a liturgist;

I have seen no positive benefits resulting from the change;

I believe that under the old dispensation, the average Catholic was much clearer about the fundamental truth that we receive the entire Christ: Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity under either kind - now I fear many think that you only receive the Body if you only receive under the appearance of bread. (I also think many think you receive bread and wine, to hear them talk, but that's another matter...)

But, but, but... the Well-Informed Liturgist splutters, at the Last Supper, Our Lord [except he wouldn't call Him that, he'd bandy the Holy Name around as though it were a brand of washing powder he was trying to flog] gave the Cup to everyone!

Indeed He did. But who was there: only men! Is that an example you wish to emulate, W-I Liturgist? Further, everyone there was a bishop: shall we extend Holy Communion only to the episcopate?

Let us look a little further into the example of Our Lord: take the great Eucharistic Miracle, the feeding of the 5,000, which is clearly preparatory catechesis for the Blessed Sacrament. All were given... bread.

And all the pre-figurement in the Old Testament: You gave your people bread from heaven and so on. The form of Bread is clearly the universal symbol.

And then there is the small matter of the practice of the Church (in the West) for centuries. As usual, my assumption is that that has not been defective...

What will be interesting to see is whether the Holy Father and the Bishops reverse this change. One bishop is showing that it can be done - but also that it needs a lot of catechesis. But given some of the other changes that are being rolled back, I am hopeful that in time we will get there.