Top Posts of 2015

Just as I did  a year ago, I thought it might be interesting to look back over the year and see which of my blog posts had the most hits.

And just as it was a year ago, the Blackfen Affair topped the bill. My brief post announcing that Fr Fisher Resigns from Blackfen was the most visited post, by some considerable margin.  Another two in the top 12 (who needs decimals anyway?) were on the same topic: in More on the Blackfen Saga (no 5 in the charts) I raised the question of episcopal oversight in this case; and in Telling Fr Fisher's Story (no 10 in the charts) I discussed Joseph Shaw's post and reactions to it.  The whole saga was clearly one that my readers, at any rate, were keen to follow closely.

The other issue that resulted in several highly-visited posts was the pair of letters, one from priests and one from the laity, in the run-up to the Synod, calling for fidelity to Catholic Teaching. The second most-visited post on this site over the year was A Roll of Honour, listing all those who had signed the letter from the laity. Just behind it in popularity, was the post inviting signatures In Support of Our Priests, Our families and Our Church ; the next most popular discussed Cardinal Nichols' Rebuke to the priests who had signed the original letter; and the one after that (no 6 in the charts, if you have been counting carefully [and even if you haven't]) was my post on The Bitter Pill on the Priests' Letter , which revealed the paucity of thinking of those opposed to the brave and faithful priest signatories. Again, I see it as very significant that this was a topic of such interest to my readers.

The remaining five in the top twelve dealt with different issues. Having said that,  no. 7 was also related to the Synod. In Not Wholly Convinced,  I took issue with Austen Ivereigh's claim:  Pastoral approach triumphs over doctrine at synod.

No 8 was pure self-indulgence: fisking Tina Beattie's absurd presentation of dissent as a legitimate Catholic approach to morality: Shooting Ducks in a Barrel. I mean, really... Even today, looking back, I cannot read her words without wondering what on earth she imagines she believes in - other than the magisterium of me. 

In at no 9 is A Straw God Argument, in which I discuss the idiocy of the increasingly ludicrous Stephen Fry, when he attempts to do theology. Maybe he and Tina should team up and found a new sect for narcissists.

At no 11 was one of my many posts on the issue of homosexuality, which often get a lot of hits. Making Gay Okay is a review of, and some reflections on, the book of that title. The subtitle is How Rationalizing Homosexual Behaviour is Changing Everything, and gives a clue to the comprehensiveness of the book, which is well researched and well worth reading.

The 12th most-read post was  More on ex-priests and ex-nuns as teachers, which does what it says in the title. I am always mildly surprised when a part two post has more hits than the part one to which it relates, but such is the blogosphere.

Needless to say, I don't think these are my 12 best posts; not necessarily the most important, nor the most edifying, nor the wittiest, nor the most thought-provoking, nor the most heartfelt. But who am I to judge?...

I hope all my readers have a happy and blessed 2016.

Telling Fr Fisher's Story

It seems that some people thought my reference to vitriol in yesterday's post was directed at Dr Shaw; I have amended the post to clarify that was not what I meant. I was referring to some of the very intemperate comments I have seen in comms boxes and on Facebook.

With regards to Dr Shaw's post, he clearly reached a different prudential judgement to me about publicising Fr Fisher's story, and on balance I think he was right, though I question the precise way he went about it. 

My concerns were that such an approach would risk depriving Fr Fisher of his good name, that it would risk provoking precisely the kinds of intemperate comments we have seen (Dr Shaw sensibly deletes them - other blogs are less prudent), and that it would provide more arguments for the enemies of tradition.

On the other hand, I think there is always a case to be made for the truth being told - and everything published was material put in the public domain by Fr Fisher himself; further, understanding what was going on for Fr Fisher undermines any attempt to re-write history and suggest that traditionalists drove him from the parish, or any such nonsense; moreover, I think that parents of the school where Fr Fisher teaches have a right to know about his history and sympathies; and it is very important in our understanding of the episcopal crisis we face in this country (which was the point of my post  yesterday).

So my criticism of Dr Shaw's post, for what it's worth, is that it did not put that context around the story, which meant it risked seeming an act of retaliation against a man who has done things we don't like.  I am quite confident that was not his intention, not least as he concludes by asking for prayers for Fr Fisher, but I have already seen that particular interpretation being touted around.

More on the Blackfen saga

I do not wish to comment on Fr Fisher (any more than I did on Kieran Conry after his fall) and for similar reasons: it is bad form to kick a man while he is down, and we do not know all the circumstances.

However, as with the Conry affair, I think it raises questions that are both legitimate and important to address, with regard to the episcopal oversight of the affair.

Soon after Fr Fisher's appointment, many were speculating about the bishop's intention in appointing him to the parish. Even given the most charitable of interpretations, it was clear that something had quickly gone very wrong. But there was no episcopal intervention, merely a bland letter.

Now it seems that there were already plenty of reasons to suspect at that time that Fr Fisher might have been in a fragile space, with regard to his faith and his vocation. Either these were known of when he was appointed to Blackfen, in which case I think he was the victim of a gross dereliction of care; or they were not, in which case I think my observations on Toxic Ignorance (which I voiced at the time of the Conry scandal, apply).

For the victims of this are not merely those who loved the traditional Mass at Blackfen, nor just those who liked the new ways at Blackfen, who have lost their new PP after less than a year, but also Fr Fisher himself, who seems to be going through a bad time (and which is really not helped by vitriolic attacks which some have made in comms boxes or on Facebook and Twitter: Catholics should know better than this). What he needed at that time is more likely to have been excellent pastoral support, not being thrown into what was bound to be a very difficult position.

I can only conclude that the crisis in the Church in the country continues, and that a major factor in this is widespread episcopal failure. 

We do have good bishops, of course, and it is important to listen to them and support them. 

And we have others. We must not be led astray by them, nor allow ourselves to be scandalised by them, or led into behaving badly ourselves, in our frustration and anger.

We must pray for them all, and for Fr Fisher, and all affected by the developments at Blackfen.

Fr Fisher resigns from Blackfen

Fr Steven Fisher, the priest who took over as PP of Blackfen when Fr Tim Finigan was moved, has announced his resignation.

His tweet has a link to a Facebook page - but the link is broken, so I can find out no more at this stage.

Readers will remember that his arrival was welcomed, but his subsequent actions caused much grief and consternation amongst those who attended the traditional Mass, which he quickly stopped.

I blogged about it extensively at the time (here for example, and here), and those posts attracted more views than anything else I have ever covered. 

I will blog further if and when further news reaches me here in the wilds of Cumbria...

Most popular posts of the year

I thought it would be of passing interest to look at the top ten most visited posts on my blog in 2014.

In the top position, and by a considerable margin, is the long and detailed post I wrote about the Trouble at Blackfen in September.

The second most visited was a post in October about the aftermath of the Conry scandal, which I called Toxic Ignorance and in which I suggested that those who promoted and protected Conry, even if ignorant of his behaviour, were still culpable, and owe us an explanation, an apology, and amends.

The third most visited post was one written largely by my brothers, who found themselves Welcoming Cardinal Kasper's Pastoral Solicitude.

The follow-up post to Toxic Ignorance, posted the following day, was the fourth most visited: More on Ignorance, and Other, Darker Matters. 

At number five, was my fisk of the ludicrous letter sent by Fr Butler, suggesting he, and not the Holy See or the CBCEW, was best placed to regulate liturgy in this country: The Butler Affair.

In at number six was the first post that was not prompted by external events, but rather by a question raised on Twitter by my old friend Stuart James, who expressed surprise and wonder at the visceral negative reaction to the Traditional Latin Mass from people who were not required to attend it anyway. I thought out loud about that here: Why is the Traditional Latin Mass So Hated?

Number seven was one of the posts in which I took a dissenting view from many in the furore about the Protect the Pope blog in May: More on the Protect the Pope saga... Number eight was as post on the same subject, posted a couple of days earlier: The Apostle in Lancaster.

Number nine was the Finals of the Pastoral Challenge: Nichols Contra Mundum. 

And number ten was my initial post about the Blackfen news: Trouble at Blackfen?  It was particularly interesting to me that this was so visited, as it said very little: but that was an indication of the keen interest, and indeed concern, with which the unfolding events at Blackfen were being watched.

The conclusion I draw is that the posts about the crisis in the Church are the ones that attract a lot of viewers (and are typically tweeted about etc). 

However, I will not be influenced by that to seek to blog only about such matters. I will continue with my rich and idiosyncratic mix of  posts about Chant and other music, my parents, my kids, liturgical changes, pop psychology, morality, the media, humour, rhetoric... and anything else that my magpie mind sees glistening in the sun...

What now?

It seems that the EF Mass at Blackfen is definitely coming to an end next week, and in rather inexplicable circumstances. Many are understandably upset and even angry at the way things have developed.

However, the immediate question is, what now?

I suggest that there are two quite separate issues. One is the ill-feeling some will undoubtedly have towards Fr Fisher. Whether deserved or not, we know from Our Lord how we should respond: sicut et nos dimittimus...

The second is the provision of the EF Mass for those who used to attend it in Blackfen.  I think it indisputable that they constitute a stable group of the type mentioned in Summorum Pontificum.  Further, I am sure that their bishop will want to support their legitimate aspirations, and bring some peace into the community that has been disrupted, whatever the reasons for that disruption.

Therefore, I suggest that those affected should write to their bishop, in terms that make it abundantly clear that those who portray them as trouble-making malcontents are quite incorrect. That is, their letters should be polite, should avoid any criticism of Fr Fisher, and should stick to the point of asking the bishop to make new provision for this community, given the unfortunate turn of events at Blackfen.

I can imagine some readers spluttering at this; but I would point out that revenge has no part in traditional Catholicism. Moreover, the seminal text on negotiating, Getting to Yes, points out that you cannot negotiate a grievance - rather you should focus on negotiating a remedy.

It may well be that people feel strongly that Fr Fisher should be spoken to; but I suggest that that is a separate issue, and point out that any bishop is likely to stand by any priest whom he has just appointed and who is going through a difficult time - and that is not necessarily a bad thing. I would suggest keeping any such issues quite separate from the business of arranging alternative provision of an EF Mass; and I further suggest that there is an obvious sequence of activities that is more likely to be successful.

But if nobody contacts the bishop, he may feel justified in concluding that there is no need to make alternative provision.

So to move this forward: write (courteously and sticking to the point) and pray.

All for the best at Blackfen?

Let us, as a starting point, assume the best of intentions of all those involved in the developments at Blackfen.

So let us assume that Fr Finigan was rewarded for his successes there by being promoted to a more responsible and possibly more challenging role in Margate,

Let us assume that the bishops, Archbishop Smith, who is familiar with the history there, and Bishop Lynch, who has the immediate local responsibility, sought out and appointed a replacement for Fr Finigan who would build on his work there, and ensure the continued mutual enrichment between the OF and the EF, as promoted by our Pope Emeritus, Benedict XVl.

Let us assume that Fr Fisher arrived with the intention of carrying out the bishops' plan to the best of his abilities 

Given those assumptions, something has gone seriously wrong.

Of course we all make mistakes, and it may be (though no reports have reached me to this effect) that some people were so upset by the initial changes Fr Fisher made, that they reacted badly, prompting his reaction, the results of which I have already blogged about.

Be that as it may, it would seem that the bishops' hopes, based on the assumptions above, are not being realised; so perhaps now would be the time for Fr Fisher to confer with them about the best way forward.

Of course, I realise that not all will share my assumptions above; my point is that, even given the most positive assumptions I can make, something has still gone seriously wrong. 

It may be, of course, that the bishops' analysis of the situation was different, and, for whatever noble reason, they had asked Fr Fisher to go in and put the parish on a different footing. If that were the case, it was clearly a more difficult brief, requiring high levels of tact and pastoral concern, in order to bring about desired change with the greatest chance of success. But surely in that case, Fr Fisher would have proceeded with a little more circumspection and slightly less haste, and above all would have sought to build some kind of relationship with those affected, so as to be able to explain what was being done and why.

If that were the plan, it has equally not worked: for I cannot believe the bishops wanted grown men reduced to tears, families and in particular children and young people, alienated, and large numbers of people shocked and scandalised by the reports emerging from the parish.  So perhaps now would be the time for Fr Fisher to confer with them about the best way forward.

In fact, whatever may have been the intentions of the bishops and the new parish priest, it seems that things have reached a point where the bishops, as the shepherds of their flock, need to use their good offices to help get things back on track.

--

In terms of latest news, I have heard that yesterday's EF Mass was replaced by an OF Mass, as there was nobody available to serve the EF, but there were people prepared to serve the OF.

I have not yet heard what has happened this morning. 

Trouble at Blackfen

So what is going on at Blackfen?  Fr Tim Finigan, the hermeneutic parish priest, was moved recently to Margate. As I understand it, he left behind him a parish at which the Extraordinary Form of the Mass (traditional Latin Mass) was celebrated once every Sunday, alongside the three Ordinary Form Sunday Masses (one being the vigil Mass on Saturday evening). The EF was also celebrated on Saturday mornings and as an extra Mass on major feastdays and former holydays.

The EF was attended both by parishioners, and by a significant number of people who travelled some distance for it.

Some time ago, The Tablet tried to stir up some controversy about it (see here and here) as the editorial line is against anything that might smack of traditional, orthodox Catholicism. Despite their best efforts, there was no real story there; it is true that not all parishioners were happy: Bernard Wynne, a spokesman for 'Catholic Voices for Reform' (and you can guess what kind of reform they want...) was not, and there were a few others of like mind. One, Susan Reynolds, was on the radio saying that her 'heart was broken' by the introduction of the EF Mass (one EF Mass, remember, when the rest of the Sunday Masses were OF). An odd reaction, one might reasonably think; but it seems she and Mr Wynne were in a very small minority in the parish.  Fr Finigan's characteristically level-headed assessment was 'there are a few who are very much in favour, a few who are strongly against, and “the substantial majority who simply wonder what Father is doing now”.'

When Fr Finigan's move was announced, regulars were pleased to learn that the incoming priest, Fr Fisher, was also used to saying Mass in the EF, and would continue to do so. That seemed a pastorally sensitive decision, as well as a sensible one, given that the EF Mass was well attended. I am told that 'people were looking forward to Fr Fisher coming, that talk had been very, very positive and that his appointment had been considered a good one among virtually everyone in the parish, particularly those attending the TLM who were delighted that they would have somebody who would understand their attachment to the Mass of Ages.' 

His Twitter picture @FrStevenFisher shows him in clerical dress, with a surplice, black cope and biretta, which should be enough to reassure any traditional Catholic.  The odd thing is that it is an old photo, from some years back; and indeed his appearance has changed significantly.  A more recent facebook profile photo, tweeted by Joseph Shaw, shows him as much leaner, and in civvies, which is apparently more typical now. 

On his arrival, things started to change very quickly, and with little or no explanation.  That alone was in marked contrast to his predecessor, who introduced change gradually, and explained each step along the way with great pastoral care.

One of the earliest changes was his deciding within very short order that he was cancelling all the EF Masses (about 18) that had been planned for feast days etc, including the Patronal Feast and Christmas Eve. He announced this on the evening of his second day in the Parish. Of course, he has every right to do so: he may have looked at the diary and thought that he would be over-committed. But understandably, that was not the most welcome thing he could have announced to endear himself to those in the parish attached to the EF.

His Thursday Benediction, which Fr Finigan had sung in Latin, was celebrated in English: he announced that Thursday Benediction would now be 'Novus Ordo,' introducing a division which had not been there before. Given that people had come with the expectation of Latin Benediction as usual, that again caused some to wonder about his approach and intentions.

He also removed the gradines and two of the six candles from the altar and made it clear that he did not want them replaced, by leaving a note to that effect on the altar. As above, he has every right to do so, but again, it was not perhaps the way to demonstrate his understanding of certain sensibilities.

For his parishioners, these were the first straws in the wind. 

On his first Sunday, he preached a homily about different 'circles of communion,' in which he was at pains to distinguish between parishioners and visitors. Visitors, of course, must be welcomed with charity, but the parish was primarily for parishioners.  Again, that caused people to wonder about his agenda.

But the point at which my friends agree that things really seemed to go off the rails was at the People's Communion at the EF Mass. At the 'Domine, non sum dignus,' he paused, holding the Sacred Host in his hand, and announced that there had been considerable confusion and discussion about the correct way to receive Communion at this (the EF) Mass. He then stated that, according to the 1983 Codex Juris Canonici it was permissible to receive kneeling or standing, on the tongue, or, in England & Wales, in the hand. At least some of those present thought that he was deliberately insinuating that the previous instruction (announced by Fr. Finigan at all EF Masses) was incorrect.

There are a couple of related issues here: one is the error.  The Instruction Universae Ecclesiae (2011), makes it clear (§24 ff) that the EF should be celebrated according to the rubrics proper to it (and see FIUV position paper here). One would have thought that, given considerable confusion and discussion, he might have done his research.

A second is the symbolic aspect: one of the reasons many are attached to the EF is the degree of reverence communicated by every aspect, including gesture. The manner of reception of communion is the most evident example of this, so an announcement of this nature, particularly at that moment of the Mass, naturally had a very strong impact.

This, I am told, is the point at which several of my friends were seriously upset. They wished to talk with him after Mass, but he apparently appeared in the Parish Centre (not in clericals, but in a shirt and jeans) took a biscuit, joked that he 'followed the Canadian model' (of clerical attire) and left without saying anything else to anyone else. 

Somehow Damian Thompson heard about some of this, and tweeted from his @holysmoke account, asking why priests felt the need to change the EF Mass, which did not go down well.

On the following Saturday, he announced from the pulpit that he was shocked that he had been denounced to 'the editor of the Spectator' (he meant Damian Thompson, who is an associate editor there); and that whoever had done so had committed a mortal sin by gossiping about parish affairs outside the parish. Clearly that was a rash thing to say, and did nothing to calm the anxieties already raised.

The Sunday EF Mass, the following day, had about half the usual number in the congregation: many had been flabbergasted at the previous week's Mass. After delivering the same admonition as given on the Saturday, he then announced that the Latin Mass was a wound in the Parish: that he had had spies (sic) at every Mass, and it was only the Latin Mass congregation that was divisive and toxic. Therefore he was going to end the Latin Mass, as of the end of September. He did not deliver a sermon (unless the admonition and winding up of the EF Mass counts as one).

So what has been going on here?

I am conscious that my friends are seeing this from one perspective: that of Catholics attached to the EF, who were supporters of the restoration of tradition which Fr Finigan had gently introduced over many years.

They are clear in their own minds that Fr Fisher arrived with an agenda to change things. Indeed, he said he had had hours of discussion with the bishop prior to coming to the parish, with the strong implication that both Bishop Lynch and Archbishop Smith were backing him up on his approach, and indeed had agreed it with him.

They think that he deliberately did things to upset the EF congregation, in order either to get numbers down, so that he could say there was no longer any demand, or to provoke some to intemperate responses, so that he could point to their toxicity and divisiveness.

If that were the case, he succeeded to some extent on both counts: numbers were down dramatically; and if talking to people like Damian Thompson, or even to friends like me counts as toxic and divisive, then that too has been achieved. I understand one parishioner was so distressed when he was denouncing people for the 'mortal sin' of speaking to a journalist, that she remonstrated with him, reminding him that he was, in Mass, acting in persona Christi. As I heard it told, this was a gentle remonstration, which provoked a very angry response: "I will not be shouted at in my Church!" though the only shouting was, I am told, by the priest. But I can see, from his point of view, that such an interruption during Mass could seem very unfriendly.

However, another source who has contacted me sees it all very differently. Although more remote from the parish, he has known Fr Fisher previously, and believes he arrived at the parish willing to sustain the EF, but was met with such unfriendliness and hostility (and that was the reputation the parish already had) that he felt that he had to confront it.

The problem I have with that explanation is first that it comes from someone who was not anywhere near Blackfen at the time; secondly that it runs so strongly against my other friends' accounts who were there, and whom I trust to tell the truth (as they see it); when I put this to one of them, I was told it was definitely not the case, and that 'we were all terrified we'd lose the EF Mass, and would have done almost anything to see it continue. We had been reassuring each other that at least Fr. Fisher said the old Mass so Fr. Finigan's work would not be lost.  He stopped to talk to parishioners after all OF Masses, but didn't stay outside after the EF ones;' and thirdly that it coincides exactly with what my Blackfen friends believe to be the 'black propaganda' that is being used to discredit them and justify the elimination of the EF Mass there.

Or is it simply a case of Greek tragedy: the priest arrived believing the parish to be divided by rabid traddies; the more traditional members of the congregation were suspicious of anyone replacing their much-missed Fr Finigan: both ended up creating the very reality they feared...?

I don't know, of course; but the astute reader will have picked up my strong suspicions.

And if my Blackfen friends' reading of the situation is accurate, that raises a further question: where did this plan to bring the EF Mass to an end originate?  With the new Parish Priest, or higher up the ecclesiastical tree?

And in my more paranoid moments, it raises a further, and more troubling, question still: what is it about the EF Mass that arouses such fear and defensiveness, that it must be consigned to oblivion?

--

I should add that I have thought and prayed about whether to post all this. I have been strongly advised in both directions.  The majority of my Blackfen friends wanted me to do so: they believe an injustice is being committed, and that myths about them are being created to justify that.

However, one of them was fearful that anything I might blog might lead people to think that I was in some way speaking for Fr Finigan, and get him in trouble. That is clearly the last thing I want to do, and I can make it quite clear that I have never met Fr Finigan, nor talked to him about any of this. The only communications I have had with him were some years back, in the comments section of his blog, and in a private correspondence resulting from that, which did not touch on any of these issues. He has had nothing to do with this post in any way - one of my concerns is that he will wish I had held my peace.

Another concern is that I may wrong, and almost certainly hurt, Fr Fisher. That too weighs heavily on me. But the hurt suffered by my friends is also weighty, and having heard it at first hand from a number of them, to keep silent would add to their pain.  

So I have to reach a judgement: I do believe that it is better to shine a light on troubling things than to collude by maintaining silence.  If I am wrong, as I may well be, I hope that this post prompts correction and clarifications, which all concerned will welcome.  If I am right, then I think Catholics need to know what is being done to those whose primary offence is attachment to the Immemorial Mass. 

--

Needless to say, prayers for all involved in this situation are of the utmost importance.

Trouble at Blackfen?

I had started to write a post about Blackfen, having heard from a couple of people... However, even as I was drafting it, more people have got in touch, and I now have both more information (and corroboration) and also more to ponder.

If anyone wants to tell me more, or offer reasons pro or contra blogging about it, please get in touch. Benny (dot) trovato (at) gmail (dot) com reaches me - or via Twitter DM etc.

These are deep waters, I think.

So that post will have to wait a few days (I am out of circulation for much of this week).

In the meantime, can I ask all my readers to pray for all involved.

Sub tuum praesidium confugimus, Sancta Dei Genetrix.
Nostras deprecationes ne despicias in necessitatibus nostris,
sed a periculis cunctis libera nos semper,
Virgo gloriosa et benedicta.

The Pope's British Divisions

I've just been listening to The Pope's British Divisions - which Catholic Voices rated as superb, though my view is somewhat different.

Idiocies

There are countless idiocies in the programme.

For example, a young person saying that the Pope's 'views are still quite out of date' on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage, and another saying the great thing about Catholicism is that you can pick and choose what you believe.

More alarmingly, the Director of Youth Services of Nottingham Diocese, Fr Joe Wheat, thinks it is 'Brilliant' and 'Fantastic' that if you ask 50 young people what Catholicism means, you will get 50 different answers; and that if young people are 'grappling and struggling' with some aspects of Church teaching, the worst thing you can do is tell them that some beliefs are required if one is to consider oneself Catholic. The particular idiocy here is that the young people are not 'grappling and struggling' with Church teaching: they have simply swallowed the secular view hook line and sinker and rejected the Truth (which has almost certainly never been explained to them by Fr Wheat or anyone else - because he doesn't want to 'make value judgements about people's Catholicism').

Another idiocy is perpetrated by Sir Stephen Wall. He recalls how when he worked for +Murphy O'Conner, Cardinal Sodano would ask + MO'C to get the Tablet to correct some of its errors. He likens that to Mobutu or some other dictator asking the British Government to censor the BBC. This is a seriously idiotic analogy. The Tablet describes itself as a Catholic paper, and it is one of the responsibilities of the hierarchy to control who uses that label and how they use it, to protect the Faithful and the Faith. Failure in this area is a continuing source of scandal.

Communion Not a Time of Judgement
At one stage they are discussing the Soho Gay and Lesbian Masses (of particular interest, perhaps, to the reporter, Mark Dowd).

Here is what Archbishop Nicholls had to say when asked if he expected those who come to Holy Communion at the Mass to live in chastity:

No priest makes the moment of Communion a moment of judgement. I trust in people as they come forward, that they do so with a good conscience, and they do so knowing that this public gesture by which they receive the Body and Blood of Christ is reflected in their heart, in their desire to live in union with Him. So that is never a point for judgement, and anybody from the outside who is trying to cast a judgement on the people who come forward to communion really ought to learn to hold their tongue.

It seems to me that there are several problems with this.

Holy Communion is a moment of judgement: St Paul is quite clear about this. That is not to say that we should judge people coming forward for communion, but it does mean that the Archbishop should ensure that the 'good conscience' in which he 'trusts people to come forward' is a conscience correctly formed in accordance with the Truth.

And where that is manifestly not the case - as the interviews with the attendees at the Mass make clear (even the Priest in charge says 'we're not here to campaign for Church teaching' - which presumably means he's not there to proclaim the Truth...) - I believe he has a responsibility to do something about it.

So he misunderstands us when we question the grave scandal caused by those openly dissenting having their own Mass. We are not judging them - they are proclaiming their dissent quite openly; no, our 'judging' if such it be, is aimed at the decision to sanction such a thing, as we fear it emperils the souls of those who take part, as they are denied proper pastoral care, and it also does great harm to others, as it risks teaching a falsehood, viz that the Church accepts practicing homosexuality as a valid lifestyle choice.


Blackfen

Susan Reynolds' 'heart was broken' by the introduction of one Latin Mass (out of 4 at the weekend) at Blackfen. My heart bleeds for her... Why do we never hear of the heartbreak caused to so many when at the drop of a hat ALL Latin Masses were outlawed and replaced by an infantilised and banal English liturgy?

Fr Finigan put his case well, though I would have put it differently, I think, and the indomitable Mac managed to get the Holy Father's point that Truth is not subject to a majority vote onto the radio.

And so it went on.

It seemed balanced, in some ways - a bit of tradition, a bit of liberalism and so on. But I was left feeling dissatisfied with it as a programme and I'm not sure why. Perhaps because although two sides of a faultline were given a reasonable airing, neither was really examined or interrogated in depth.

There is much more that could be said about this, but I really ought to get on with my work. However, there is a good review at The Sensible Bond should you wish to read more.

(Don't tell the Tablet!...)

I was kicking myself for not having saved Fr Tim's fisk on the attack on him by the Tablet before their lawyers charitably ordered him to remove his defence....

It seems to me that natural justice suggests he should have the right to reply line-by-line if that's how he chooses to defend himself.

Now I have discovered that Berenike had the nous to find it on googlecache and has posted it here

The idea is to take a copy, and then if the Tablet's litigious people get onto Berenike, we can make it dance around the internet with them chasing, which has the incidental pleasure, presumably, of them submitting regular invoices to the Pill for the work...

Thus not only does the Tablet's attack result in some rather fine rose vestments in Blackfen, but also... perhaps I'd better say no more.

You will of course already be aware from previous posts how keen I am to save The Pill from itself.

Reviving the Tablet...

I fear that The Tablet's current strategy for increasing circulation (threatening those who offer it free publicity with copyright actions) may not work too well.

So I wondered: what might help its circulation?

In a spirit of free and friendly advice, I came up with a few ideas. Here's the first.

Dear Pill (a problem page - after all vox populi...)

You can imagine the kind of thing...

Question: Dear Pill
My other half has been to a Latin Mass and said it was prayerful. What should I do?
Distraught of Blackfen

Answer: Dear Distraught,
Do you have any children? If so, it is important to note that if it is necessary to protect them from serious abuse by a parent, cannon law does allow for separation, and even civil divorce.

Question: Dear Pill
How can I trust the bishops, when they don't admit women to full and equal participation in the Church? And they've never publicly denounced Humanae Vitae!
Raving of Ealing

Answer: Dear Raving
We sympathise with your pain, and while at this time the bishops are bound by the current ruling, we ask you to be patient. Work by feminist theologians has thrown up interesting questions concerning an all-male leadership. You must follow your conscience.

Question: Dear Pill
How can I trust the bishops, when they don't implement Summorum Pontificum?
Concerned of Wandsworth

Answer: Dear Concerned
You must recognise that the Bishops have authority over the local Church in all things liturgical, and submit to their wisdom about what is good for the whole ecclesial community. Don't be divisive!

Question: Dear Pill
My Parish Priest has introduced Latin Masses. Help!
Sincere of Longbenton

Answer: Dear Sincere,
Find a couple of others who think this is a bad step and invite us up to do a daring expose of the split in your parish!