When I started this blog, some years ago (November, 2006, to be accurate), my intention and hope was to create a forum for discussing fatherhood in practice from a catholic perspective, with other Catholic fathers (and others interested).
Over the years, the blog has wandered all over the place and touched on many topics. The most-read posts have often been those on the current crisis in the Church. Though oddly, the most-read of all was about archaeology...
Although the site never became that discussion forum I had envisaged, as a result of it, and my twitter account, I have got to know a number of Catholic fathers (and others) over the years. I have learned a lot from many of them; high on the list must be the indefatigable Mark Lambert, the perspicacious Ttony, and the sometimes challenging and always thought-provoking Part Time Pilgrim. All of whom I regard as friends, though I have only met one of them in the flesh.
And somewhere along the line, the children grew up. Ant, having worked as a Maths teacher in a couple of quite challenging schools (and, I think, made a real difference) is now being a full-time mother for a while; and Bernie works as a pro-life education officer, going into schools and teaching them about life before birth, and why abortion is a really bad idea. Charlie is at University, and Dominique is just doing her A Levels, and I look forward to their next moves with great interest. I am immensely proud of all of them, of course.
But as for this blog, I will keep it going, at least intermittently, and try to ensure that it includes as much that is positive as it does focus on the current difficulties.
It is true that it was the CES Scandal that prompted me to break my silence, and I don't think I have written my last post on that, simply because is strikes me as so important; but I hope to write as much about other, and more edifying, topics over the coming months and years.
Showing posts with label Blogging. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Blogging. Show all posts
Monday, 29 May 2017
Wednesday, 10 May 2017
Breaking my silence
So it had been a while since I had posted on this blog. I was aware that I risked getting sucked into a cycle of negativity, as the oddities of the current pontificate, and the particular difficulties of the discussion surrounding Amoris Laetitia, unfolded. So I thought I would keep quiet for a while.
And then, the CES Scandal.
However, I do think it important that we don't get sucked in to focusing only on the things that go wrong. Our Faith is joyful, luminous, sorrowful, and glorious. If we only talk about the sorrows we are misrepresenting it. And anyway, my SD advised me to use my talents (if any) at writing to spread the joy of the Gospel.
Which is a bit of a challenge. Blogging about this in general terms can come across as a bit trite. But blogging about all the specific blessings we receive as a family can sound like boasting or something.
But he is right, of course: spreading gloom and despond is not the way to win souls to Christ. And whilst it may be necessary to confront wrongdoing (and in the case of the CES Scandal, I think it was, and that it is even conceivable that my contribution may make a difference) that should not be the whole thrust of this blog (even though such posts invariably command a far higher readership than many of my others).
So here is a very small, but positive, snippet from my daily life. I awoke early this morning - long before my alarm was due to go off. And I found that I was praying the Magnificat, in a state of semi-consciousness as I came to the surface.
And the reason for that is that for some years now, it has been my practice to pray it first thing in the day, as part of my morning prayers, and also in the evening, after Compline.
My point here is that simply by doing what the Church tells us (praying first thing and last thing in the day) I have inadvertently acquired a virtuous habit, whereby my mind, as it returns to wakefulness, turns to God and His blessed Mother. This is a grace, of course, and I claim no merit for it. But I mention it as a piece of experience from a middle aged man, in the hope that some younger reader may take heart, and recognise that although he may not be aware of any changes in himself, a regular adherence to the discipline of prayer will, over the long term, result in change.
Deo gratias.
And then, the CES Scandal.
However, I do think it important that we don't get sucked in to focusing only on the things that go wrong. Our Faith is joyful, luminous, sorrowful, and glorious. If we only talk about the sorrows we are misrepresenting it. And anyway, my SD advised me to use my talents (if any) at writing to spread the joy of the Gospel.
Which is a bit of a challenge. Blogging about this in general terms can come across as a bit trite. But blogging about all the specific blessings we receive as a family can sound like boasting or something.
But he is right, of course: spreading gloom and despond is not the way to win souls to Christ. And whilst it may be necessary to confront wrongdoing (and in the case of the CES Scandal, I think it was, and that it is even conceivable that my contribution may make a difference) that should not be the whole thrust of this blog (even though such posts invariably command a far higher readership than many of my others).
So here is a very small, but positive, snippet from my daily life. I awoke early this morning - long before my alarm was due to go off. And I found that I was praying the Magnificat, in a state of semi-consciousness as I came to the surface.
And the reason for that is that for some years now, it has been my practice to pray it first thing in the day, as part of my morning prayers, and also in the evening, after Compline.
My point here is that simply by doing what the Church tells us (praying first thing and last thing in the day) I have inadvertently acquired a virtuous habit, whereby my mind, as it returns to wakefulness, turns to God and His blessed Mother. This is a grace, of course, and I claim no merit for it. But I mention it as a piece of experience from a middle aged man, in the hope that some younger reader may take heart, and recognise that although he may not be aware of any changes in himself, a regular adherence to the discipline of prayer will, over the long term, result in change.
Deo gratias.
Tuesday, 5 January 2016
A Simple Soul
I'm a simple soul, so have been a bit wary of wading into the difficult issue of whether Muslims worship the same God as we do. I was aware that my head said yes: in so far as they worship the God of Abraham, then they worship the same God as we (and the Jews, of course) do. Yet my feelings were less confident: not only because of the atrocities and barbarities committed in the name of Allah (Christianity, after all, is not unblemished there) but also because of the way in which they seem to conceive of God: so unutterably distant that the notion of calling God 'Father' is pretty well blasphemous; not to mention denial of Christ, the Trinity and so on. And of course, all that could also be said of the Jews.
So I was interested to read John Charmley's piece on the (always fascinating) All Along the Watchtower site. John does not duck the difficulties, and indeed links to a previous piece of his own in which he argues the case against the proposition. However, his more recent piece is more nuanced, and reconciles what the Church officially teaches with his own difficulties.
In short, it hangs on that clause I introduced earlier: in so far as they worship the God of Abraham, then they worship the same God as we (and the Jews, of course) do. Of course, they do so in a limited way, as, like the Jews, they have not accepted the fullness of Revelation in Our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently know far less of God (eg they deny the Trinity) and how to worship Him.
Reading today's Epistle from St John set another thought going in my mind. 'Everyone who loves is begotten by God and knows God. Whoever is without love does not know God, for God is love.' So, in so far as the Muslim (or Christian, come to that) is truly seeking to live out of love, he knows (however imperfectly) God.
All that then reminded me of another attempt to deal with these difficult issues: C S Lewis' in The Last Battle.
Here Emeth, surely the type of a good Muslim in Lewis' thinking, encounters Aslan: I said, Alas Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me.
Lewis however, rejects the idea that we worship the same God: Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted.
Forced to choose between Lewis and the teaching of the Church, I naturally adhere to the teaching of the Church. But I quote Lewis because I think his insight also applies. When a Muslim (or a Christian) does things in the name of God which are against love, it is not God whom he serves, but Satan.
As I said at the start, I am a simple soul. The Church teaches that Muslims worship the same God and I accept that. The Church also teaches that their understanding of God is limited, and that they need Christ for salvation, and I accept that. The Church also teaches that, in so far as Islam differs from Christianity (and that is a very substantial amount indeed), it is a false religion. And I accept that.
And mutatis mutandis, the same could be argued about all the Protestant denominations which reject aspects of the Catholic Faith, to unpack a little further what Archdruid Eileen says here.
Of course the state of any individual's soul is not mine (or yours) to judge.
So I was interested to read John Charmley's piece on the (always fascinating) All Along the Watchtower site. John does not duck the difficulties, and indeed links to a previous piece of his own in which he argues the case against the proposition. However, his more recent piece is more nuanced, and reconciles what the Church officially teaches with his own difficulties.
In short, it hangs on that clause I introduced earlier: in so far as they worship the God of Abraham, then they worship the same God as we (and the Jews, of course) do. Of course, they do so in a limited way, as, like the Jews, they have not accepted the fullness of Revelation in Our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently know far less of God (eg they deny the Trinity) and how to worship Him.
Reading today's Epistle from St John set another thought going in my mind. 'Everyone who loves is begotten by God and knows God. Whoever is without love does not know God, for God is love.' So, in so far as the Muslim (or Christian, come to that) is truly seeking to live out of love, he knows (however imperfectly) God.
All that then reminded me of another attempt to deal with these difficult issues: C S Lewis' in The Last Battle.
Here Emeth, surely the type of a good Muslim in Lewis' thinking, encounters Aslan: I said, Alas Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me.
Lewis however, rejects the idea that we worship the same God: Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted.
Forced to choose between Lewis and the teaching of the Church, I naturally adhere to the teaching of the Church. But I quote Lewis because I think his insight also applies. When a Muslim (or a Christian) does things in the name of God which are against love, it is not God whom he serves, but Satan.
As I said at the start, I am a simple soul. The Church teaches that Muslims worship the same God and I accept that. The Church also teaches that their understanding of God is limited, and that they need Christ for salvation, and I accept that. The Church also teaches that, in so far as Islam differs from Christianity (and that is a very substantial amount indeed), it is a false religion. And I accept that.
And mutatis mutandis, the same could be argued about all the Protestant denominations which reject aspects of the Catholic Faith, to unpack a little further what Archdruid Eileen says here.
Of course the state of any individual's soul is not mine (or yours) to judge.
Friday, 1 January 2016
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.
Sunday, 1 November 2015
Acedia
I mentioned the other day (here) that I have started reading Abbot Jamison's Finding Happiness. Yesterday, I read the chapter on Acedia, and it really hit home. Fr Jamison mentions that the Eight Thoughts of Cassian and the Desert Fathers were reduced to Seven Deadly Sins: and that it was Acedia that was dropped from the list.
That is a great shame: Acedia, according to Fr Jamison, is spiritual carelessness, and is an evil to which we should pay especial attention in our time, as it is so prevalent that we risk not seeing it at all.
And then he writes: 'Gossip and idle curiosity are top of the list of things to avoid: these activities waste our time, distracting us from more generous or thoughtful conversation or reading. Celebrity news magazines would be a good example of this; they do no apparent external harm but are a complete waste of internal time and space. So cut out reading rubbish and allow reading time to become spiritual reading.'
My version of 'Celebrity news magazines', is probably 'idle internet browsing.'
I had a somewhat restless night (post hoc, but not, I think, propter hoc), and by the morning had composed this limerick:
That is a great shame: Acedia, according to Fr Jamison, is spiritual carelessness, and is an evil to which we should pay especial attention in our time, as it is so prevalent that we risk not seeing it at all.
And then he writes: 'Gossip and idle curiosity are top of the list of things to avoid: these activities waste our time, distracting us from more generous or thoughtful conversation or reading. Celebrity news magazines would be a good example of this; they do no apparent external harm but are a complete waste of internal time and space. So cut out reading rubbish and allow reading time to become spiritual reading.'
My version of 'Celebrity news magazines', is probably 'idle internet browsing.'
I had a somewhat restless night (post hoc, but not, I think, propter hoc), and by the morning had composed this limerick:
I pointlessly browsed Wikipedia
And self-diagnosed: "It’s Acedia!
I spend nights and days
Online, in a haze,
Especially on social media."
So I will be attempting to exercise vigilance in my use of social media: not eschewing them altogether - I think Twitterangelus a good thing, and I learn a lot from, for example, Fr Hunwicke. I even think my blogging may serve some good ends. But I will try to refrain from 'gossip and idle curiosity.'
Sunday, 19 July 2015
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.
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.
Thursday, 9 April 2015
Thanks
Having modestly claimed the credit for myself and Mark Lambert yesterday, a more sober reflection is that the number of signatories on the letter was the result of the efforts of a great many people, to whom thanks is due.
In the first place are the many bloggers who kindly published the blog post at or near midday on Palm Sunday. It was very heartening to see things like this:
In all I am aware of 31 blogs that carried the post. The full list of honour is here (and let me know of any that I have missed):
In the first place are the many bloggers who kindly published the blog post at or near midday on Palm Sunday. It was very heartening to see things like this:
In all I am aware of 31 blogs that carried the post. The full list of honour is here (and let me know of any that I have missed):
So thanks to all of the bloggers who carried this.
Secondly, thanks to all those who signed, including any who tried to sign and were baffled by the technology (I forgot that people needed a Google account to add comments to my blog until quite late in the process, when I turned that requirement off). And particular thanks to those who urged others to sign, cross-posted on Facebook and Twitter, and so on. Apologies, too, to anyone whose signature did not appear when they expected it to. The process was doubtless flawed.
And finally thanks to Madeleine Teahan at the Catholic Herald for carrying the original story about the priests' letter, and also for her positive presentation of this story.
This is only the start...
Wednesday, 8 April 2015
Two men is all it takes (bis)...
Two men is all it takes: as two ordinary
Catholic fathers, Mark Lambert and I have collected more than 500 signatures on a letter in support
of the 461 brave priests who wrote to the Catholic Herald recently.
When we saw the priests’ letter to the Herald in support of Catholic teaching, and in particular when we saw that it was so helpful
and clear, we wanted to express our support. Instead of simply writing
ourselves, we decided to see if we could get a similar number of laity to
sign a letter of support.
So we posted a response and an appeal for signatures on our blogs, and asked other lay Catholic
bloggers to do the same. In the event 30 blogs carried the appeal, starting on
Palm Sunday, and as a result 515 people have signed the letter, which is now carried by the Herald online, and will be in the print edition at the weekend, thanks to Madeleine Teahan.
I think more people would have signed, but at about the same time, someone started an iPetition to similar effect, and many people having signed one, thought they had signed the other.
Nonetheless, we are delighted that people from every diocese in England and Wales, as well as
many in Scotland and Ireland, signed. We also had signatures from all over the
world, in particular Europe, the USA, Canada, and Australia.
We
felt that it was important to support the priests, because after the Synod,
there was some confusion about the Church’s teaching, and the priests made it
quite clear what that teaching is and why it is correct. It is wonderful to see
priests fulfilling their ministry in such a clear and charitable way.
As
fathers, we know that it is particularly important for the next generation to
have the benefit of the Church’s clear teaching to guide them. As society moves
further and further from a Christian understanding of marriage, it is essential
that Christ’s true teaching is presented in a clear way, to help people avoid
the tragedy of family breakdown.
And this public initiative seems a good time to lift the veil on the identity of Ben Trovato.
Thursday, 12 March 2015
Indexing the Muniment Room
I have long been a fan of Ttony's blog, The Muniment Room. He posts fascinating, well-researched pieces covering a range of topics relevant to believing Catholics.
However, his blog has no search function (update: see comments below), and he does not tag his posts either (the rotter!)
I had occasion today to look up his posts on the infamous National Pastoral Congress of 1980, which he identifies as the turning point in English Catholicism, from the traditional Faith to the new project.
These are uniformly excellent - and indeed essential reading for anyone interested in how we got to where we are; and by where we are, I mean a Church in England and Wales where the so-called pastoral approach has so diluted and confused the Faithful that moral and doctrinal chaos abounds.
So as a service to my delightful and discerning readership, here's the full list of those posts (though I don't guarantee its completeness). Go, read, and pray...
However, his blog has no search function (update: see comments below), and he does not tag his posts either (the rotter!)
I had occasion today to look up his posts on the infamous National Pastoral Congress of 1980, which he identifies as the turning point in English Catholicism, from the traditional Faith to the new project.
These are uniformly excellent - and indeed essential reading for anyone interested in how we got to where we are; and by where we are, I mean a Church in England and Wales where the so-called pastoral approach has so diluted and confused the Faithful that moral and doctrinal chaos abounds.
So as a service to my delightful and discerning readership, here's the full list of those posts (though I don't guarantee its completeness). Go, read, and pray...
NB: This is part one of a one-off project: I am not indexing the whole of The Muniment Room (Ttony please note!)
Wednesday, 31 December 2014
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...
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...
Sunday, 6 July 2014
More on the Quilisma
I blogged recently about the Quilisma, here. In response to a request in the Combox, I have now recorded the different versions: in each case, I sing the usual interpretation (note before the quilisma lengthened) first, then the new hypothesis (following note lengthened) second. I hope that this makes it clear what I was on about.
In the meantime, I have had an interesting conversation with Dr Beale (@Dr_Teacake) on Twitter. He commented: A brief trill might be right. We lengthen the previous note, *and* often the subsequent notes. When I asked how he decided, he referred me to the Graduale Triplex. I also asked for examples of people employing a trill, and he directed me to two fabulous and fascinating recordings on Youtube, here and here.
Yet again, blogging my ignorance has led the wise to teach me. I love this!
Tuesday, 6 May 2014
Hammering Heretics
As you can imagine, I am a fan of hammering heresy.
Hammering heretics is perhaps a slightly different matter.
I will leave that thought hanging for a bit, and digress. If I remember, I will return to it at the end of this post.
I have been distressed at the coverage on much of the Catholic blogosphere of the whole Protect the Pope saga.
There has been a quick, and I would suggest tribal, reaction: ' Bad bishops.... censorship... abuse of power... lies...'
All that started before the explanation issued by +Campbell, and that explanation was then read and interpreted through that hermeneutic.
However, the facts are limited, and the interpretations that could be placed on them are many and varied. For that reason - in fact in simple justice - I have taken to pointing out some of the fallacies in the argument, and suggesting there could be another interpretation.
Of course, the risk in all this is that I could b seen to be 'siding with the bishop against Deacon Nick.' One commentator (Geoffrey Sales, on Jessica Hoff's blog) had the gall to suggest that I was imbued with the culture of CBCEW (though to be fair, he later looked at my blog and I think took a different view).
I don't really want to side with anyone on this, as we don't know the facts. If I have stood up for the bishop it is because I have seen him unjustly maligned and demonised. Nick, it seems, needs no such defender in me, as there are so many others rushing to his support. However, if in my efforts to point out that there are readings of this affair which paint the bishop in a better light, I have unjustly denigrated Nick, I truly apologise: that is not my intention.
Nonetheless, I risk doing so again, as I believe that, in justice, the point must be made: we simply do not know enough about this affair to say the bishop is as bad as he is being painted - or indeed bad at all.
The issue is complicated, but many seem to have reduced it to an idiotic simplicity. I am afraid that James Preece, for example (with whom I have a great degree of sympathy on so many issues) has done so here.
So I would like to spend a little more time on this, and look at the story from two quite different points of view. Of course, what follows is an imaginative exercise, merely designed to show that the same set of incidents can be seen very differently by people of good faith. I do not presume to speak for either Deacon Nick or the Bishop, and am sure that each would write a very different account of the affair than the ones I offer. But, as I say, my design is to show that the same set of incidents can be seen very differently by people of good faith.
On the one hand, I can imagine from Nick's point of view it could look something like this:
On the other hand, I can imagine from the Bishop's point of view, it could look something like this.
But the Bishop has no case, the cry goes up. Nick has only ever blogged from an orthodox point of view, and naming those doing wrong is surely both justifiable and necessary.
To that I would reply that other orthodox bloggers had raised concerns about one or two (and only one or two) of Nick's posts before this incident. See Patricius, here, and me, here, for example.
Let me re-state: I am not saying that either account is right or wrong. I suspect both to be right in some aspects and wrong in others, as I do not have full access to the facts, and still less to the intentions of the protagonists. My point is simply this: neither does anyone else. For which reason, the rush to judgement of the bishop, and in particular the imputation to him of malign motives, is quite unjust.
I promised to return to the hammer. It has been wisely said that to a man with a hammer, every problem is a nail. The risk is that to a man on a mission to hammer heresy, every disagreement reveals a heretic.
Hammering heretics is perhaps a slightly different matter.
I will leave that thought hanging for a bit, and digress. If I remember, I will return to it at the end of this post.
I have been distressed at the coverage on much of the Catholic blogosphere of the whole Protect the Pope saga.
There has been a quick, and I would suggest tribal, reaction: ' Bad bishops.... censorship... abuse of power... lies...'
All that started before the explanation issued by +Campbell, and that explanation was then read and interpreted through that hermeneutic.
However, the facts are limited, and the interpretations that could be placed on them are many and varied. For that reason - in fact in simple justice - I have taken to pointing out some of the fallacies in the argument, and suggesting there could be another interpretation.
Of course, the risk in all this is that I could b seen to be 'siding with the bishop against Deacon Nick.' One commentator (Geoffrey Sales, on Jessica Hoff's blog) had the gall to suggest that I was imbued with the culture of CBCEW (though to be fair, he later looked at my blog and I think took a different view).
I don't really want to side with anyone on this, as we don't know the facts. If I have stood up for the bishop it is because I have seen him unjustly maligned and demonised. Nick, it seems, needs no such defender in me, as there are so many others rushing to his support. However, if in my efforts to point out that there are readings of this affair which paint the bishop in a better light, I have unjustly denigrated Nick, I truly apologise: that is not my intention.
Nonetheless, I risk doing so again, as I believe that, in justice, the point must be made: we simply do not know enough about this affair to say the bishop is as bad as he is being painted - or indeed bad at all.
The issue is complicated, but many seem to have reduced it to an idiotic simplicity. I am afraid that James Preece, for example (with whom I have a great degree of sympathy on so many issues) has done so here.
So I would like to spend a little more time on this, and look at the story from two quite different points of view. Of course, what follows is an imaginative exercise, merely designed to show that the same set of incidents can be seen very differently by people of good faith. I do not presume to speak for either Deacon Nick or the Bishop, and am sure that each would write a very different account of the affair than the ones I offer. But, as I say, my design is to show that the same set of incidents can be seen very differently by people of good faith.
On the one hand, I can imagine from Nick's point of view it could look something like this:
He set up Protect the Pope to provide a forum for supporting the Holy Father prior to, and during, his visit to the UK, in the face of an almost unprecedented anti-Catholic media frenzy. By presenting a Catholic view, backed up by substantive facts and the undermining of the claims of the Holy Father's detractors, he accomplished a great deal. Catholics at least, and many fair-minded observers, were able to see that most of the attacks on Pope Benedict and the Church were at best ill-informed, and often worse.
His blog attracted a very significant following, which demonstrated that there was a real appetite for this, both in the UK and abroad.
After the papal visit, he continued to make the case for orthodox Catholicism, defending it from enemies without, and also on occasion, from those within the Church who were undermining or diluting it.
With the arrival of Pope Francis, problems within the Church became more acute. Dissident voices, such as ACTA, were given new courage, and it seemed some in the hierarchy were turning a blind eye to their subversion, or even colluding with it. And nobody seemed to be doing anything about that. So, whilst recognising that this would be unpopular and risky, he decided to shine a light on that too, including naming those in positions of authority who were not doing as they should.
There were howls of outrage from the usual suspects, and a number said that they were going to complain to the bishop about the blog.
Then, suddenly, the bishop suspends the blog temporarily. Moreover, when a period has passed, he extends the suspension and adds that nobody else should post to it either.
Everyone can see what's going no here, as the comments of support on the blog, twitter and other blogs make quite clear.
On the other hand, I can imagine from the Bishop's point of view, it could look something like this.
He had heard that Deacon Nick had set up a blog to defend the Pope, and that it was very successful. He congratulated Nick.
Some time later, he received a number of complaints from different sources, saying that Nick was over-stepping the mark, and posting unjustified attacks on named individuals, including members of the Hierarchy, as well as hosting a range of very uncharitable comments in the combox. Examples were provided that seemed to justify these concerns.
He asked one of his staff to have a quiet word with Nick about it, but the concerns remained and further examples were sent that suggested no change of approach. It was also pointed out that the blog had a huge readership, internationally, so it was a matter of some importance to get this right.
He therefore asked Nick to pause from blogging, and to reflect on how he used, and allowed others to use, the blog. That was a private conversation, and the hope was that Nick would take some time out, to pray and reflect, and later they could agree on how best the blog could be used.
Whilst Nick desisted from posting on the blog, two unforeseen things happened. One was that his wife took up the mantle, and the blog carried on much as before. The second was that Nick took to other social media, including publicising a large number of comments to the effect that the Bishop had closed down the blog because of Nick's defense of orthodoxy.
That was scarcely the period of prayer and reflection that the Bishop had had in mind; indeed, it confirmed the bishop's view that so intense a focus on seeking out heresy and heretics had not been good for Nick's judgement. So when Nick asked if he could resume blogging, the bishop suggested that the period of prayer and reflection should be extended.
Nick then announced that he would stop blogging for good, and that the the Bishop had effectively closed down the blog. The volume and hostility of the blogosphere intensified, vilifying the bishop.
The bishop issued a statement to point out that he had not, in fact, closed down the blog. For obvious reasons, he did not include his view that Nick's judgement was temporarily a bit impaired, as such a judgement is by its nature confidential, and also because in the climate of the blogosphere, it would have been wide open to misrepresentation. That statement was interpreted in the most negative way possible by those determined to see this as yet another example of 'the bishops' colluding with liberals and persecuting the orthodox.
But the Bishop has no case, the cry goes up. Nick has only ever blogged from an orthodox point of view, and naming those doing wrong is surely both justifiable and necessary.
To that I would reply that other orthodox bloggers had raised concerns about one or two (and only one or two) of Nick's posts before this incident. See Patricius, here, and me, here, for example.
Let me re-state: I am not saying that either account is right or wrong. I suspect both to be right in some aspects and wrong in others, as I do not have full access to the facts, and still less to the intentions of the protagonists. My point is simply this: neither does anyone else. For which reason, the rush to judgement of the bishop, and in particular the imputation to him of malign motives, is quite unjust.
I promised to return to the hammer. It has been wisely said that to a man with a hammer, every problem is a nail. The risk is that to a man on a mission to hammer heresy, every disagreement reveals a heretic.
Saturday, 3 May 2014
More on the Protect the Pope saga...
I live in the diocese of Lancaster, along with +Campell and Deacon Nick. I am no apologist for bishops behaving badly (as a brief look at items tagged 'bishops' in my blog will confirm). However, I think that our Bishop, +Campbell, has been misunderstood, and even misrepresented and defamed by many on the blogosphere over this.
It is all too easy to say that Nick is being closed down because of his orthodoxy: but there is no evidence for that view, unless one has already judged the Bishop to be an enemy of orthodoxy. The technical term for that is prejudice.
In fact, the Bishop makes clear that he had concerns over the tone of Nick's blog, and particularly the combox. He asked Nick to carry on with his good work, but ensure that due charity was observed, as he is an ordained deacon. He believed that was not happening, so asked Nick to pause, reflect and pray. Nick asked him if he could resume, and +Campbell said the period of prayer and reflection was not yet over.
Nick, it seems, then decided to close the blog, and to announce that the Bishop had closed it. Nick also, on Twitter and Facebook, publicised a very large number of hostile commentaries, accusing his bishop of all manner of things: and I think the bishop's impatience with that approach is also discernible in his statement.
I like Nick, and I like his blog: but even his best friend could hardly claim it was completely innocent of the charge of ad hominem attacks and uncharitable comments, particularly in the Combox, for which the blog owner is responsible.
One might disagree with the Bishop's judgement over this, but for myself, I am pleased that a Bishop takes seriously his responsibility for what ordained ministers do and say in his diocese: I only wish many more would do so, with particular reference to heretics and dissenters.
I think this has been compounded by a failure of communication: Nick seems still to be unclear why he was asked to pause; and that clearly does not help.
However, what has helped much less has been the rush to judgement on the bishop by so many, with so much noise; in particular, the misrepresentation in the press and on the blogosphere. It is not difficult to put oneself in the Bishop's shoes and imagine what that must look like.
It should be noted that Bishop Campbell is no liberal time-server. He encourages Confession with his 'The Light is On for You' project; he has invited excellent and orthodox nuns into the University Chaplaincy; he hosts a monthly Traditional Mass in the Cathedral (and continued it when he had a first-class excuse to stop it) and has even invited the Institute of Christ the King (dedicated to the Traditional Mass) to run a large and prestigious Church in Preston.
I personally have been astonished at the unthinking and visceral nature of the attack on Bishop Campbell by so many, including many whose views I normally take seriously, and whom I regard as online friends. I think it is most unhelpful to the cause of orthodox Catholicism to start with the assumption that every Bishop is a liar and an enemy - and in this case, simply not true. I understand, and indeed share, the sense of betrayal that is the legacy of so many poor (and worse) decisions by so many in the hierarchy over the years: but we should nonetheless proceed with both charity and a degree of intelligence!
By all means go after Bishops who are remiss (with caritas and veritas in due proportion, of course) - but let us not savage those who are doing so much better than so many of their peers.
It is all too easy to say that Nick is being closed down because of his orthodoxy: but there is no evidence for that view, unless one has already judged the Bishop to be an enemy of orthodoxy. The technical term for that is prejudice.
In fact, the Bishop makes clear that he had concerns over the tone of Nick's blog, and particularly the combox. He asked Nick to carry on with his good work, but ensure that due charity was observed, as he is an ordained deacon. He believed that was not happening, so asked Nick to pause, reflect and pray. Nick asked him if he could resume, and +Campbell said the period of prayer and reflection was not yet over.
Nick, it seems, then decided to close the blog, and to announce that the Bishop had closed it. Nick also, on Twitter and Facebook, publicised a very large number of hostile commentaries, accusing his bishop of all manner of things: and I think the bishop's impatience with that approach is also discernible in his statement.
I like Nick, and I like his blog: but even his best friend could hardly claim it was completely innocent of the charge of ad hominem attacks and uncharitable comments, particularly in the Combox, for which the blog owner is responsible.
One might disagree with the Bishop's judgement over this, but for myself, I am pleased that a Bishop takes seriously his responsibility for what ordained ministers do and say in his diocese: I only wish many more would do so, with particular reference to heretics and dissenters.
I think this has been compounded by a failure of communication: Nick seems still to be unclear why he was asked to pause; and that clearly does not help.
However, what has helped much less has been the rush to judgement on the bishop by so many, with so much noise; in particular, the misrepresentation in the press and on the blogosphere. It is not difficult to put oneself in the Bishop's shoes and imagine what that must look like.
It should be noted that Bishop Campbell is no liberal time-server. He encourages Confession with his 'The Light is On for You' project; he has invited excellent and orthodox nuns into the University Chaplaincy; he hosts a monthly Traditional Mass in the Cathedral (and continued it when he had a first-class excuse to stop it) and has even invited the Institute of Christ the King (dedicated to the Traditional Mass) to run a large and prestigious Church in Preston.
I personally have been astonished at the unthinking and visceral nature of the attack on Bishop Campbell by so many, including many whose views I normally take seriously, and whom I regard as online friends. I think it is most unhelpful to the cause of orthodox Catholicism to start with the assumption that every Bishop is a liar and an enemy - and in this case, simply not true. I understand, and indeed share, the sense of betrayal that is the legacy of so many poor (and worse) decisions by so many in the hierarchy over the years: but we should nonetheless proceed with both charity and a degree of intelligence!
By all means go after Bishops who are remiss (with caritas and veritas in due proportion, of course) - but let us not savage those who are doing so much better than so many of their peers.
Thursday, 1 May 2014
The Apostle in Lancaster
Bishop Michael Campbell, the successor of the apostles in Lancaster, my home diocese, is coming in for a lot of criticism on the Catholic blogosphere at present.
That has been sparked by the controversy over the suspension of the Protect the Pope blog, about which I have blogged previously (here).
Deacon Nick has behaved in an exemplary fashion in his obedience to his bishop. He has also made it clear both that the media reporting of the incident (eg in The Tablet) has been error-strewn, and also that he finds it very frustrating to read people's assumptions.
So my plea is this: let us not assume anything about this situation. Nick is clearly not able to say much about it; the bishop has said very little (and he may have good reasons for that). Yet many on the Catholic blogosphere assume that they know the bishop's motives and that they were not good: he has been explicitly accused of injustice, and implicitly of much besides.
But I know that +Campbell is not some liberal time server. He has done much that orthodox Catholics should applaud. He encourages Confession actively with his "the Light is on for you" project. He allows a monthly Sunday Mass in the EF in his Cathedral, and is attending a High Mass (EF) in the near future. He has invited two excellent nuns in to support the University Chaplaincy at Lancaster, which has recently hosted a Plainchant workshop for students...
Nor is he under the thumb of the CBCEW. Do you imagine he wins many plaudits there by inviting the Institute of Christ the King to run a parish in Preston?
I think it is unhealthy for Catholics to assume a bishop to be malign based on insubstantial information, and most unhelpful for them then to make a lot of noise to that effect.
We do not know what has happened behind the scenes with regard to the Protect the Pope blog. We may find out, in due course, and if +Campbell has behaved poorly I will shout as loudly as everyone. But we don't know that he has, and it is both unjust and imprudent to assume that he has. There are other possible explanations that reflect well on him, without denigrating the good work Deacon Nick has done. I won't enumerate them, as Nick has made it clear he does not like reading such assumptions, and I think his reasonable wishes in that regard should be honoured.
For myself, I think my bishop deserves to be regarded as innocent until proven guilty; and moreover, honoured and supported for the good (and in some cases courageous) steps he has taken.
That has been sparked by the controversy over the suspension of the Protect the Pope blog, about which I have blogged previously (here).
Deacon Nick has behaved in an exemplary fashion in his obedience to his bishop. He has also made it clear both that the media reporting of the incident (eg in The Tablet) has been error-strewn, and also that he finds it very frustrating to read people's assumptions.
So my plea is this: let us not assume anything about this situation. Nick is clearly not able to say much about it; the bishop has said very little (and he may have good reasons for that). Yet many on the Catholic blogosphere assume that they know the bishop's motives and that they were not good: he has been explicitly accused of injustice, and implicitly of much besides.
But I know that +Campbell is not some liberal time server. He has done much that orthodox Catholics should applaud. He encourages Confession actively with his "the Light is on for you" project. He allows a monthly Sunday Mass in the EF in his Cathedral, and is attending a High Mass (EF) in the near future. He has invited two excellent nuns in to support the University Chaplaincy at Lancaster, which has recently hosted a Plainchant workshop for students...
Nor is he under the thumb of the CBCEW. Do you imagine he wins many plaudits there by inviting the Institute of Christ the King to run a parish in Preston?
I think it is unhealthy for Catholics to assume a bishop to be malign based on insubstantial information, and most unhelpful for them then to make a lot of noise to that effect.
We do not know what has happened behind the scenes with regard to the Protect the Pope blog. We may find out, in due course, and if +Campbell has behaved poorly I will shout as loudly as everyone. But we don't know that he has, and it is both unjust and imprudent to assume that he has. There are other possible explanations that reflect well on him, without denigrating the good work Deacon Nick has done. I won't enumerate them, as Nick has made it clear he does not like reading such assumptions, and I think his reasonable wishes in that regard should be honoured.
For myself, I think my bishop deserves to be regarded as innocent until proven guilty; and moreover, honoured and supported for the good (and in some cases courageous) steps he has taken.
Monday, 17 March 2014
Over Reactions
I have refrained from joining in the conversation about the Protect The Pope furore until now, as I wanted to reflect further on it.
I have followed Deacon Nick's posts for a long time, and as I said here, I think he is doing an important job, even if I don't always agree with him, or with the tone of some of his posts.
However, I do think that the reaction to the story by many of his supporters has been an over-reaction.
Many are talking as though he is 'being silenced' for his defence of orthodoxy.
However, he is not 'being silenced.' Rather he has been asked to take a break from his blog, voluntarily, to reflect and pray about his work.
We do not know the context, in terms of any previous conversations, nor the reasons for the bishop's request. It seems at least as likely, to me, that the bishop is concerned about the tone, as much as the content, of some posts.
Whilst Nick is doughty in his defence of Orthodoxy, for which I admire him greatly, he does also seem to me sometimes to interpret things in a particular way that is not necessarily the most obvious or likely, and also sometimes to be intemperate and over-personal in his criticisms.
It does not seem unreasonable to me to expect bloggers in Holy Orders to be held to particularly high standards when they blog. Indeed, I would like to see more bishops taking more steps to maintain the high standards of public pronouncement by those under their authority.
But the reaction has been extraordinarily strong, and the criticisms of the bishop very wide-ranging. He is the bishop of my diocese, and I think much of the criticism is unfair. His remains, for example, the only Cathedral (addendum: other than Portsmouth - see below) in the country with a Traditional Mass said in it every Sunday - hardly the mark of the raving anti-traditional liberal some paint him as.
As I say, I think much of the wider criticism is unfair and uncharitable.
For example, people are citing as evidence of the bishop's 'inconsistency' the fact that the diocesan blog linked to a particularly Tabletish Tablet article. I would dare wager the bishop did not know about that. It was, I understand, an automated feed, and indeed has now been removed.
I worried myself that the ACTA crowd were allowed to hold a meeting in Bishop's House. However, on reflection, it seems more likely that was a decision by a secretary rather than the bishop himself.
Another charge laid at the door of +Campbell seems to be that he hasn't taken action against those undermining Church teaching, such as the Tablet. But that really is outside his jurisdiction. I have blogged before about what I see as the problems of collegiality amongst our bishops, but that is a problem that any one bishop would be hard-pressed to sort on his own.
My point is this: whilst (as Deacon Nick has often pointed out, just as I have myself) there are real causes for concern in the Church in this country at the moment, it helps nobody if people who want to uphold orthodoxy take up any stick to beat any bishop.
Our first instinct should be loyalty to our bishops, and respect for their office. That does not mean blind obedience, or obsequious acquiescence if they are on the wrong track. But it does mean we should pause, at least, before we criticise (and Heaven knows, I am talking as much to myself here, as to anyone else...)
And in this particular case, I think such a pause, and some sober reflection (and even prayer) might have led people to view this a little differently - or indeed to recognise they did not really have enough information to form a fair view at all.
The alternative may be very gratifying, but we risk making things worse rather than better. +Campbell's predecessor, +O'Donoghue took a remarkable course towards the end of his time as active Diocesan Bishop. But if he had been harried by the well-meaning but mis-guided, I wonder if he would have done so. Attacking +Campbell unjustly is hardly likely to win him over to the views of those who attack him.
I think a period of prayer and reflection all round would be a good idea.
UPDATE
I am informed that there is also a weekly Usus Antiquior Mass in Portsmouth Cathedral. My researches suggest that this is a Low Mass at 8.00 am every Sunday. Deo gratias.
I have followed Deacon Nick's posts for a long time, and as I said here, I think he is doing an important job, even if I don't always agree with him, or with the tone of some of his posts.
However, I do think that the reaction to the story by many of his supporters has been an over-reaction.
Many are talking as though he is 'being silenced' for his defence of orthodoxy.
However, he is not 'being silenced.' Rather he has been asked to take a break from his blog, voluntarily, to reflect and pray about his work.
We do not know the context, in terms of any previous conversations, nor the reasons for the bishop's request. It seems at least as likely, to me, that the bishop is concerned about the tone, as much as the content, of some posts.
Whilst Nick is doughty in his defence of Orthodoxy, for which I admire him greatly, he does also seem to me sometimes to interpret things in a particular way that is not necessarily the most obvious or likely, and also sometimes to be intemperate and over-personal in his criticisms.
It does not seem unreasonable to me to expect bloggers in Holy Orders to be held to particularly high standards when they blog. Indeed, I would like to see more bishops taking more steps to maintain the high standards of public pronouncement by those under their authority.
But the reaction has been extraordinarily strong, and the criticisms of the bishop very wide-ranging. He is the bishop of my diocese, and I think much of the criticism is unfair. His remains, for example, the only Cathedral (addendum: other than Portsmouth - see below) in the country with a Traditional Mass said in it every Sunday - hardly the mark of the raving anti-traditional liberal some paint him as.
As I say, I think much of the wider criticism is unfair and uncharitable.
For example, people are citing as evidence of the bishop's 'inconsistency' the fact that the diocesan blog linked to a particularly Tabletish Tablet article. I would dare wager the bishop did not know about that. It was, I understand, an automated feed, and indeed has now been removed.
I worried myself that the ACTA crowd were allowed to hold a meeting in Bishop's House. However, on reflection, it seems more likely that was a decision by a secretary rather than the bishop himself.
Another charge laid at the door of +Campbell seems to be that he hasn't taken action against those undermining Church teaching, such as the Tablet. But that really is outside his jurisdiction. I have blogged before about what I see as the problems of collegiality amongst our bishops, but that is a problem that any one bishop would be hard-pressed to sort on his own.
My point is this: whilst (as Deacon Nick has often pointed out, just as I have myself) there are real causes for concern in the Church in this country at the moment, it helps nobody if people who want to uphold orthodoxy take up any stick to beat any bishop.
Our first instinct should be loyalty to our bishops, and respect for their office. That does not mean blind obedience, or obsequious acquiescence if they are on the wrong track. But it does mean we should pause, at least, before we criticise (and Heaven knows, I am talking as much to myself here, as to anyone else...)
And in this particular case, I think such a pause, and some sober reflection (and even prayer) might have led people to view this a little differently - or indeed to recognise they did not really have enough information to form a fair view at all.
The alternative may be very gratifying, but we risk making things worse rather than better. +Campbell's predecessor, +O'Donoghue took a remarkable course towards the end of his time as active Diocesan Bishop. But if he had been harried by the well-meaning but mis-guided, I wonder if he would have done so. Attacking +Campbell unjustly is hardly likely to win him over to the views of those who attack him.
I think a period of prayer and reflection all round would be a good idea.
UPDATE
I am informed that there is also a weekly Usus Antiquior Mass in Portsmouth Cathedral. My researches suggest that this is a Low Mass at 8.00 am every Sunday. Deo gratias.
Wednesday, 15 January 2014
Inspired by cheap music
I have made no secret of my poor taste in music (here for example, and passim), yet even I hesitate to admit to liking a Billy Joel album.
In mitigation, I plead that it was given me as a parting present by a French exchange guest (who was doubtless fed up with my poor taste in music and thought he should introduce me to something…. better…). It was The Stranger, and I listened to it a few times; and as so often with cheap music, the associations of that period in my life mean that I continue to like it (my fondness for Abba springs from the same period - but I digress.) I further plead that what I've heard of his subsequent music has not appealed to me at all.
The reason for mentioning Billy Joel now is that one song, Only The Good Die Young, (an adolescent attack on Catholicism, as it happens) contains a telling line: I know they never cared for me,// but did they ever say a prayer for me? That struck me as a very powerful indictment at the time, and has stayed with me ever since.
Yesterday, I was exhorting (or at least reminding) my readers to pray for those with whom they have profound differences - specifically 'women priests' and abortionists.
Today, I am adding another suggestion. I have observed that the Catholic blogosphere is somewhat fractured. I think it behoves us to pray regularly for those with whom we have fallen out. I would also suggest that such prayers should be kept between you and God. I think there are contexts in which telling someone that you are praying for him or her is not appropriate (still less telling others…)
I think it worth paying attention, too, to the quality of that prayer: it is all too easy to pray for the conversion of the evil other to one's own sane and sensible point of view, or for their forgiveness for the wrongs they have done you. But perhaps those are not the most appropriate prayers in this context. But again, I leave that between you and God.
In mitigation, I plead that it was given me as a parting present by a French exchange guest (who was doubtless fed up with my poor taste in music and thought he should introduce me to something…. better…). It was The Stranger, and I listened to it a few times; and as so often with cheap music, the associations of that period in my life mean that I continue to like it (my fondness for Abba springs from the same period - but I digress.) I further plead that what I've heard of his subsequent music has not appealed to me at all.
The reason for mentioning Billy Joel now is that one song, Only The Good Die Young, (an adolescent attack on Catholicism, as it happens) contains a telling line: I know they never cared for me,// but did they ever say a prayer for me? That struck me as a very powerful indictment at the time, and has stayed with me ever since.
Yesterday, I was exhorting (or at least reminding) my readers to pray for those with whom they have profound differences - specifically 'women priests' and abortionists.
Today, I am adding another suggestion. I have observed that the Catholic blogosphere is somewhat fractured. I think it behoves us to pray regularly for those with whom we have fallen out. I would also suggest that such prayers should be kept between you and God. I think there are contexts in which telling someone that you are praying for him or her is not appropriate (still less telling others…)
I think it worth paying attention, too, to the quality of that prayer: it is all too easy to pray for the conversion of the evil other to one's own sane and sensible point of view, or for their forgiveness for the wrongs they have done you. But perhaps those are not the most appropriate prayers in this context. But again, I leave that between you and God.
Friday, 3 January 2014
A Turbulent Deacon
It's always the way, when you (or at least, I) do a list of (for example) blogs to award a prize to: waking up the next day and thinking, 'But what about…?'
I have already added one well-deserved extra to the list, but another blog I often read with interest and approval is written by that turbulent deacon, Nick Donnelly: Protect the Pope.
Not that I always agree with everything he writes (see for example, Patricius' analysis of a recent mis-step, here). And indeed, his latest post seems to me to be rather harsh.
But that's not the point: I don't read - or recommend - people because I always agree with what they say. Rather, because I find them variously stimulating, thought-provoking, or entertaining.
It is easy to forget the atmosphere when Deacon Nick started his blog: it was before Pope Benedict's visit here, and the press was full of vitriol and misrepresentation. Protect the Pope was established to counter that, and dissect and correct many of the misrepresentations.
Since then it has developed, as blogs do, but with a similar locus of attention: countering misrepresentations of the Faith and championing orthodoxy. Notwithstanding the fact that I think he occasionally misses the target, overstates the case, or reads others through an overly-critical lens (none of which are faults to which I incline in the least, let it be understood!) I think Deacon Nick plays a very important role in the Catholic blogosphere.
This is the turbulence of my title, and is, of course, a reference to St Thomas à Beckett: when there is so much idiocy about, then turbulence of this kind is the correct response.
I have already added one well-deserved extra to the list, but another blog I often read with interest and approval is written by that turbulent deacon, Nick Donnelly: Protect the Pope.
Not that I always agree with everything he writes (see for example, Patricius' analysis of a recent mis-step, here). And indeed, his latest post seems to me to be rather harsh.
But that's not the point: I don't read - or recommend - people because I always agree with what they say. Rather, because I find them variously stimulating, thought-provoking, or entertaining.
It is easy to forget the atmosphere when Deacon Nick started his blog: it was before Pope Benedict's visit here, and the press was full of vitriol and misrepresentation. Protect the Pope was established to counter that, and dissect and correct many of the misrepresentations.
Since then it has developed, as blogs do, but with a similar locus of attention: countering misrepresentations of the Faith and championing orthodoxy. Notwithstanding the fact that I think he occasionally misses the target, overstates the case, or reads others through an overly-critical lens (none of which are faults to which I incline in the least, let it be understood!) I think Deacon Nick plays a very important role in the Catholic blogosphere.
This is the turbulence of my title, and is, of course, a reference to St Thomas à Beckett: when there is so much idiocy about, then turbulence of this kind is the correct response.
Thursday, 2 January 2014
Bringing sunshine...
This was already, of course, an award winning blog, but I have just won a second: a Sunshine Award, courtesy of the irrepressible Eccles.
Doubtless there will be those who castigate me for accepting this, Eccles not being universally popular. But there seem to be lots of pots and kettles involved in all that, so I will ignore any such censure.
Let nobody be churlish enough to suggest that Eccles is merely returning the favour, because I nominated him for a Liebster Award some time ago.
As usual, this award comes with strings attached - or at least conditions to fulfil:
Bear in mind that I am mendacious:
1) I first got to know Mrs T in a school production of The Mikado.
2) Despite my Romanism, two sentences that regularly bring me up short, in terms of examination of conscience, were written by Anglicans (C S Lewis: 'I would have thought that a man with your advantages…' and T S Eliot 'the greatest treason: to do the right deed for the wrong reason.'
3) My maternal grandfather squandered the family fortune on fast cars.
4) My paternal grandfather was a conscientious objector in WW1; and my father was one in WW2 (though he later recanted, when he learned the true evil of Hitler's regime).
5) My kids have nearly as many aunts as Bertie Wooster - and nearly as terrifying.
6) I once, as a teenager, got the zip of my trouser fly entangled in the mesh of a supermarket basket, leading to much embarrassment when I tried to put the basket down at the checkout.
7) I worked for the post office on the railways in the Christmas vacation, and dropped a mailbag under a train, resulting in one of the steel D-rings at the top being turned into tin foil.
8) The R&B band I played in at University played covers (ranging from Tom Petty to Elvis Costello, the Stranglers to The Monkees) really really quickly, and managed to make them all sound the same.
9) This year, we celebrate our thirtieth wedding anniversary.
10) My kids really did believe there was a Father Book, from which I knew the answers to everything.
The next task that goes with this award is to nominate ten other blogs (though some I would have nominated have already been chosen….):
1 The Muniment Room
2 Catholic and Loving It
3 Cum Lazaro
4 The Sensible Bond
5 Porta Caeli
6 Bara Brith
7 Valle Adurni
8 Beaker Folk of Husborne Crawley
9 Gateshead Revisited
10 That the Bones You Have Crushed May Thrill.
So now I am off to leave comments on all those blogs to let them know of the great honour I have just bestowed.
UPDATE
I found, on visiting my chosen recipients, that one has already been awarded this prize; I won'\t tell you which, so you have to go and look at all of them. However, it does give me the opportunity to add a further blog, which should have been in the original list:
10 (bis) Twelve Mini Pilgrimages
The Sunshine Award is for those who 'who positively and creatively inspire others in the blogosphere.'
And of course, reminds one of this.
Let nobody be churlish enough to suggest that Eccles is merely returning the favour, because I nominated him for a Liebster Award some time ago.
As usual, this award comes with strings attached - or at least conditions to fulfil:
1 illustrate the Award in the post
2 Link to the blogger who was kind enough to nominate you.
3. Write 10 pieces of information about yourself.
4. Nominate ten fellow bloggers “who positively and creatively inspire others in the blogosphere.”
5. Leave a comment on the nominees’ blogs to tell them of the award.
So without further ado, having done 1 & 2, what I now have to do is to reveal ten facts about myself.Bear in mind that I am mendacious:
1) I first got to know Mrs T in a school production of The Mikado.
2) Despite my Romanism, two sentences that regularly bring me up short, in terms of examination of conscience, were written by Anglicans (C S Lewis: 'I would have thought that a man with your advantages…' and T S Eliot 'the greatest treason: to do the right deed for the wrong reason.'
3) My maternal grandfather squandered the family fortune on fast cars.
4) My paternal grandfather was a conscientious objector in WW1; and my father was one in WW2 (though he later recanted, when he learned the true evil of Hitler's regime).
5) My kids have nearly as many aunts as Bertie Wooster - and nearly as terrifying.
6) I once, as a teenager, got the zip of my trouser fly entangled in the mesh of a supermarket basket, leading to much embarrassment when I tried to put the basket down at the checkout.
7) I worked for the post office on the railways in the Christmas vacation, and dropped a mailbag under a train, resulting in one of the steel D-rings at the top being turned into tin foil.
8) The R&B band I played in at University played covers (ranging from Tom Petty to Elvis Costello, the Stranglers to The Monkees) really really quickly, and managed to make them all sound the same.
9) This year, we celebrate our thirtieth wedding anniversary.
10) My kids really did believe there was a Father Book, from which I knew the answers to everything.
The next task that goes with this award is to nominate ten other blogs (though some I would have nominated have already been chosen….):
1 The Muniment Room
2 Catholic and Loving It
3 Cum Lazaro
4 The Sensible Bond
5 Porta Caeli
6 Bara Brith
7 Valle Adurni
8 Beaker Folk of Husborne Crawley
9 Gateshead Revisited
10 That the Bones You Have Crushed May Thrill.
So now I am off to leave comments on all those blogs to let them know of the great honour I have just bestowed.
UPDATE
I found, on visiting my chosen recipients, that one has already been awarded this prize; I won'\t tell you which, so you have to go and look at all of them. However, it does give me the opportunity to add a further blog, which should have been in the original list:
10 (bis) Twelve Mini Pilgrimages
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
