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.

A House Divided

I have not written a lot about the Synod, but it continues to... (is haunt the right word?...) me.

Last night I read Bishop Athanasius Schneider's powerful response to the final document. I was interested that he named our own Cardinal Nichols.

It seems to me that what +Schneider is saying, and indeed the known positions of various Cardinals who were at the Synod, such as ++Pell, ++Sarah, and indeed many others, are in stark opposition to what ++Nichols, ++Kasper and so on are saying (here for example, though as ever, ++Nichols' studied ambiguity makes it very hard to be sure quite what he means...).

So what is a Catholic to do? One's instinct is to look to the Holy Father: where is Peter on this? But that is not entirely clear (which in itself is a problem, I believe). So we then have to look a little more searchingly: what is the Tradition of the Church? What have previous Pontiffs said and, more importantly, formally taught? What do the Catechisms say? And in this case, we also have the very clear teaching of Our Lord and St Paul. So it is not difficult to conclude that +Schneider et al stand in the Faith of the Church, and insofar as ++Nichols et al are opposed to that, they have departed from the Church's teaching.  

If my analysis is correct, that is a grave situation indeed: one inevitably reflects on Mark 3:25, A house divided against itself cannot stand. However, we also have Our Lord's promise in Matthew 16:18 that 'the gates of hell shall not prevail against her (the Church).'

So we have to conclude that, even if, as at the time of the Arian heresy, many bishops are espousing heretical beliefs, the Church will stand: the bishops in error will either fall away, leaving the house still standing, albeit somewhat shaken by their fall; or they will come to their senses.  We hope and pray, of course, for the latter.

On another note, I am currently reading, inter alia, Christopher Booker's mighty work on The Seven Stories. I don't like his Jungian interpretations, but his fundamental analysis of story types is fascinating and compelling.

It led me to ask myself What is the story we are living through: is it a comedy of a tragedy?

I have to conclude that it is a Divine Comedy: that ultimately,  'All shall be well, and all shall be well and all manner of thing shall be well.' But that does not preclude personal tragedy, of course. Souls may be lost, and much damage done along the way.

But we must not lose the Faith, we must not lose Hope, and we must remain in Charity: for these three endure.

Confrontation

I was reflecting on my reactions to ++Nichols' sermon at the LGBT Mass. It seemed to me that the sermon was orthodox, and yet failed to do the job, and indeed was never likely to do so. I even found myself wondering if it had been deliberately crafted to be capable of the kind of interpretation that Queering the Church put on it.

But I am always wary of ascribing motives - we are, after all, forbidden from judging them - so I thought further... And here are the results of my ruminations.

What was 'the job' which I thought the Cardinal's sermon had failed to do?  It was, I think, to confront those attending the Mass with the Church's teaching, in such a way that there was some chance that some, at least, of them might re-consider their position with regard to it (which, as Terry Weldon makes abundantly clear, they reject out of hand).

All of which reminded me of some notes I had made about confrontation in a different context: performance management at work.

So I dug out my notes, headed 'The Dynamics of Confrontation.'

1 You identify the need to confront someone
Be clear about the purpose of confronting - to help the other person to change his or her behaviour. That implies that the individual needs to understand what change is required and why, and also that he or she needs to leave the discussion feeling motivated and able to change - not beaten up or shamed. 

2 You experience anxiety
There is always some anxiety at the prospect of these difficult conversations: that may be worsened if you have had a bad experience of confrontation in the past, either with this person or someone else. Recognising this anxiety is the first step to counter-acting it. 

3 Anxiety distorts behaviour
It may be that your behaviour is distorted by your anxiety in one of two ways: 

• Pussyfooting: you may be so concerned not to cause offence that you avoid discussing the issue altogether, or you wrap up your message in such woolly or apologetic language that the message or its importance get lost. This will lead to no change in behaviour - and growing frustration in you. If you find yourself thinking “How many times do I have to tell him...?” it may be that you have been pussyfooting. The technical term for this is Collusion.

• Clobbering: you may be so concerned not to pussyfoot - or so frustrated with the problem behaviour - that you deliver your message too forcibly and are perceived as aggressive. This will leave the other person feeling beaten up - and while he or she may comply in the short term, you will leave a legacy of resentment and disempowerment. If you find yourself thinking “Why are they so defensive?” or “Why can’t they decide things for themselves...?” it may be that you have been clobbering. The technical term for this is Oppression.

4 Behaviour freed from anxiety
The skill is to detach yourself from your anxiety and other disruptive emotions (eg annoyance), and focus on steering the middle course: telling the truth (as you see it) without compromise and with compassion. 

Without compromise means no cotton wool, no apologising, no ‘praise sandwiches,’ and short, direct and factual statements. 

With compassion means no anger, no blame, and a sincere intention to help the other person to learn and change his or her behaviour.

4 Learning for other person
When you get it right, you may notice a reaction of shock or recognition in the other person. If you are then quiet and listen (resist the temptation to move into apologetic mode), you will be able to help the other person to consider what you have said and decide whether, what, and how to change. This is uncomfortable for both people, but can lead to genuine insight and learning. 

5 Appropriate support
At the end of the discussion, end on a sincere and positive note - expressing appreciation of the person’s commitment to address the issue and offering any appropriate support. 

 I thought this a helpful framework to use to understand what may be going on here. My guess is that the Cardinal did not want to alienate anyone, for fear of losing them to the Church altogether, and that anxiety may have caused him to Pussyfoot (or Collude). For whilst he did speak the truth, that the commandments are not optional, ('God's mercy is misunderstood if it is taken as something which enables us to overlook those commandments or somehow imagine that we are excused their calling.') it was so wrapped in the long discussion of mercy, that it may not have been clearly heard (especially given the filters we know are in place with some of the congregation).

On the other hand, I think he was right to avoid Clobbering (or Oppression): a hell-fire sermon on the evils of sodomy and the wickedness of the way of life of some of those assembled (which, I have to say, is the direction in which my anxiety might well have tempted me to move...) would have been at least as unlikely to have resulted in any metanoia, any profound change of heart. 

According to this analysis, a clear and short statement of the Church's teaching, on mercy, on the commandments, on the requirements of a well-formed conscience etc, delivered with true compassion, would have been the most likely to have some chance of having an impact. 

(And all that does rather assume that the Cardinal would want to have such an impact, which I do not take for granted...)

But I would like to see the experiment tried...

Underestimating the love and compassion of God

I had to write yesterday's post in a hurry, and there are more things I wished to say.

Let us consider a hard case: a man whose wife abandoned him for another man, and who has reason to believe that the marriage was never valid, but who cannot prove that through the annulment process. Further, he is morally certain that there is no possibility of restoring his original, true marriage to its rightful state, or of his wife having anything further to do with him.

He has re-married and is raising a family with a new woman.

Let us further suppose that he is striving to grow in holiness, and recognises the objective truth - and therefore the necessity - of the Church's teaching and practice. We can then consider various possibilities.

Perhaps he agrees with his new woman that they cannot separate, for the sake of their children, but should live as brother and sister as the Church requires. Can anyone doubt that God will not shower such self-sacrificial love with grace and blessings? He is not to be outdone in generosity.  This could well be the path to sanctity for both of them, and a school of true love and holiness for their children.

Or we could imagine that he sets off on that path, but they find it too hard, and relapse back into living as man and wife. But he goes to confession, renews his resolution, and starts again. In such a case, too, it is impossible to imagine God failing to reward such perseverance with countless graces and blessings. Our Lord repeatedly preached on such issues, for there is more joy in Heaven over one repentant sinner...

Or we could imagine that he raises the topic with his new woman, but she, not being a Catholic, simply doesn't get it, and will not agree. She presents him with an ultimatum: to live as man and wife or to separate. For the sake of his children, and for love of her, he will not separate. So he goes to Mass regularly, but in a spirit of humility and obedience, and to avoid giving scandal, he refrains from receiving Holy Communion. Do we think Our Lord will refuse him grace for that? And if his first marriage really were null, and his second thereby valid, can we doubt that Our Lord, through His infinite mercy and compassion, will give him as much, or even more, grace as he would have received as a communicant?

I think that is perhaps the worst error of all, underpinning the soi-disant reformers' case: that they underestimate the love and compassion of God, and believe that they have to make up the deficit.

And while we debate this, in the approach to the Synod, let us never forget to pray for all those in irregular situations,  for all those who disagree with us, and for the success of the Synod and the good of the Church.

The Mythology of Re-Marriage

In the run-up to part two of the Synod, I fear that I am going to have to return to this theme more than once.

So perhaps I should start this post (which is a follow-up, as promised, to this one) by stating my credentials. I am no moral theologian, or scholar of religion. However, when it comes to this topic, I do have some life experience to bring to bear. I am a sinner from early childhood, so understand something of the dynamics of sin and self-deception; and I have been married for more than thirty years, for better and for worse, and know a little about that.

But much more importantly, I have been raised in the Faith of the Church, and simply seek to pass on what I have received.

It seems to me that the movement in favour of telling divorced and re-married people that they may receive Holy Communion must rest on one or more of the following errors.

• A false understanding of mercy and compassion
• Confusion about the reality of sin
• A lack of belief in the teaching authority of the Church
• A desire to change the Church's teaching
• A belief in the necessity of erotic love

So let us address them in turn.

A false understanding of mercy and compassion. The argument is often couched in terms of mercy or compassion. That may be the underlying intention indicated by this: I see no reason why one cannot believe in the indissolubility of marriage in a doctrinal sense, but still think that it is right in practice to make allowances and bend rules for people whose lives go wrong. In fact I think this is far more Christlike than treating them as uniquely sinful.

The general drift is that we mustn't be too hard on people, because that is not kind; and we all make mistakes (or even, in more reactionary circles, 'we all fall into sin'). Therefore, we should overlook the fact that someone is divorced and remarried, in the name of mercy or compassion.

However, that is not the approach taken by Christ, who surely is our model, nor the approach taken by the Church, His Mystical Body, animated by the Holy Spirit. Rather, Christ's approach, and the Church's approach following His example and inspiration, is to call sin by its name, and to call sinners - that is all of us - to repentance.

Of course, Christ is compassionate; of course, the Church is; of course we must be. We must reach out in love to everyone.  But it is a false compassion to teach people that sin is good, and needs no repentance.

Moreover, the kindness advocated by those calling for change is very unkind, and indeed unjust, to others; not least abandoned spouses and children. It also creates a moral climate in which more people are likely to suffer abandonment in the future. It strikes me as the kind of compassion that buys the drunk another drink at the bar, rather than the tough love that would insist on walking him home...

Underlying that error is another, I think, that is at the root of the problem for many people: 

Confusion about the reality of sin. The problem here is that many of us know people who have been divorced and re-married. We know that they are not evil people. We know they are often devoted to their new families. So surely their new relationship cannot be harmful. Even if, technically, it is not legitimate, if it is based on love, and their conscience is clear, what can be wrong with that?

This view confuses two things: the subjective and the objective. About the subjective, we are forbidden from judging: indeed how can we possibly know the state of someone else's conscience? We may, charitably, assume that they are acting according to their best lights, and therefore recognise that the guilt associated with their illicit relationship may be negligible (if, for example, they truly believe that their first marriage was invalid). We are certainly forbidden from reaching a negative judgement about another's conscience.

However, the subjective does not over-ride the objective. A (hypothetical) abortionist who sincerely believes that his vocation is to help women in difficulty, and is therefore subjectively innocent, nonetheless kills an unborn child every time he performs an abortion. Further, he does himself genuine harm each time: he gives Satan a further foothold in his soul (and the macabre case of Kermit Gosnell, for example, demonstrates the cumulative impact of that, as does the willingness of other abortionists to perform the visibly evil partial-birth abortions).  The point is that sin is bad for us (and others), even if we do not fully understand that it is sin, or fully consent to it. There is an objective reality at work here.

It is distressing when even Cardinals of the Church seem to forget this truth, and say that the old language – of mortal sin, for example – was a misguided attempt to motivate the faithful (see here).

In the case of the divorced and re-married, there are several things going on at this level. One is the continuing breach of the solemn promises made at the first marriage. A second is the objective act of adultery committed each time the new union is consummated. A third is disobedience to the teaching and authority of the Church. Even where subjective guilt is minimal, these objective facts will cause harm to the person committing the sin. That is why it is a false mercy to pretend to the person that it is all right to continue to do so: in doing so, we are colluding with the individual doing great harm to himself or herself, and inevitably to others, too (for such is the nature of sin); not to mention offending God. For, and this is the really tricky bit, the teaching about re-marriage being adultery, and adultery being sinful comes straight from Christ Himself.

There is one other aspect to this. Many pastors seem to think that the issue should be left to the conscience of the individual. That is to overlook another reality: Original Sin. Part of the damage we suffer (known as concupiscence) is that we are not the best judges in our own cases: the merest self-reflection reveals how quick we are to make excuses for our own sins. It is a false compassion to allow people to delude themselves on so vital an issue.

As mentioned, persistence in believing that, though divorced and remarried, one should be free to receive Holy Communion, also demonstrates a lack of belief in the teaching authority of the Church. The Church has clearly and consistently taught that those in a state of mortal sin thereby exclude themselves from communion, until they have confessed their sin, with a firm purpose of amendment. That teaching, of course, follows logically from what has been stated above, that sin is bad for the sinner, and from St Paul's admonition. Therefore, the Church, in her maternal love, calls the sinner to repentance, just as Her Lord did. One of the reasons for the current confusion, I think, is that the Church has not been sufficiently clear about this in recent decades. For everything I argue here also applies to anyone in a habitual state of sin which he or she is not repenting of and striving to amend - such as the Catholic couple who use artificial contraception, or the priest who entertains impure thoughts or uses pornography, and so on. 

The leads us to the next error I identified: A desire to change the Church's teaching.

My instinct is that the corruption of the faithful, and possibly the clergy, at this level underpins this call for 'compassion.' It is much more comfortable to call for the 'rules' to be changed than to confront the need to submit to the change that Christ demands - and will accomplish, if we allow Him to.

However, the Church can no more change the moral law than she can change the nature of the Trinity. She can only pass on the truth entrusted to her - or fail to do so. And in the case of so many of our pastors, it is the latter we find. They fail to teach the truth, and in failing to do so, end up losing their grip on it themselves. 

And in large part, I think that is due to them succumbing to a particularly peculiar error: 

a belief in the necessity of erotic love.  This seems to underlie comments such as the suggestion that repentance followed by living “ as brother and sister” as laid down in Familiaris Consortio is ludicrous and cruel.' (here, 4th letter). We know that the deepest and truest love need not be expressed through sexual intimacy: again we have the example of Christ to follow here, as well as His Blessed Mother, countless saints through the ages, and many celibate priests, religious and lay people in our own time. But in a post-Freudian, post-sexual-revolution world, many of our bishops and priests seem to think that such a truth is unteachable. Which is an error that is visibly causing immense harm to the Church and many, many families.

--

As I mentioned at the start, I am no moral theologian, and am always open to correction if I have misunderstood or misrepresented anyone or anything in this blog, just let me know. But my fear is that my analysis is correct, and that the battle at the Synod will be damaging.

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.

--

Update:

See here for my additional thoughts on hard cases, and the love and compassion of God.

Cardinal Nichols' Rebuke

I read Cardinal Nichols' rebuke to the brave priests with interest and puzzlement. How was he, I wondered to myself, going to tell priests off for fulfilling an essential part of their vocation: viz, proclaiming the Gospel?

A tricky task, one might think.

But not for Cardinal Nichols. He is up to any such challenge. Here is his statement, as quoted in the Catholic Herald:

Every priest in England and Wales has been asked to reflect on the Synod discussion. It is my understanding that this has been taken up in every diocese, and that channels of communication have been established. 

The pastoral experience and concern of all priests in these matters are of great importance and are welcomed by the Bishops. Pope Francis has asked for a period of spiritual discernment. This dialogue, between a priest and his bishop, is not best conducted through the press.

So the naughtiness of the priests is not proclaiming the Gospel (phew) nor even, apparently, doing so in the public forum (phew again) but rather using the press as the channel of dialogue with their bishops.

That might seem reasonable enough (heavens, it might even be reasonable enough) if  this letter were addressed to the bishops; or even if the priests had good reason to believe the bishops would listen to private dialogue; or even if the bishops themselves were reflecting prayerfully on all this. But none of those conditions is clearly met.  

In the first case, the letter is more of a public proclamation of loyalty to Christ, His Church and its teaching (and why would any bishop object to that?) than anything else. True, it concluded with an exhortation to all those attending the Synod - but that group is by no means the same as the bishops of these priests. Only three from England and Wales are attending; and many others from many other nations are. 

The second issue is sadder; it seems that many priests, perhaps with good reason, do not believe that the bishops listen to private dialogue. 

And as for the third, it seems that Cardinal Nichols has already gone public with his view, contra the Bible, the Catechism, Tradition and just about everything else, that divorced and remarried people could be readmitted to Communion under certain conditions, according to The Pill.

Some of the more cynical amongst us wonder if the real problem is that the Cardinal and the Conference like to control the narrative, and that control has been wrested from them by the internet, much as samizdat broke the Party's control of communication in the USSR.

And who knows where that might lead? Why, even the laity may forget to hold their tongue, and start demanding that the Faith be taught and lived: and then where would we be?

Oh, that was it...

I have just remembered one of the things I had meant to include in my previous post. (One of the many characteristics I share with ++Nichols is forgetfulness....).

But I read this passage in Sheed's wonderful To Know Christ Jesus, and it seemed very à propos:

They were a strange lot, these eleven; and they would be succeeded by men stranger than themselves. He who had foreseen Peter's denials and the flight of the men he had chosen, also foresaw popes like Benedict IX and John XII, foresaw whole hierarchies moving into heresy or cowering before rulers; he foresaw you and me. Yet this was his choice - the gifts of truth and life should come through these men and their successors; in union with them, we are in union with him all days until the end of the world.

If you have not read Sheed, you should! (If you have, you should re-read him...)

So what hope is there?

In my most recent post, I said that my next would be on hope.

In the absolute sense, of course, Hope is foundational to Catholicism.  But I was being more specific than that, and thinking of the current crisis in the Church in this country.

Of course, our hope is always grounded in the Resurrection and Ascension of Our Lord, His Redemptive Work, and His promises to us. We know that the victory has been won, and that whilst the skirmishes continue, there is no doubt about the outcome. Our job is to make sure that we are on the right side, and to bring as many with us as we possibly can.

Nonetheless, when we find ourselves in a crisis where a number of the hierarchy have forfeited our trust, and many priests and even bishops seem to be in de facto schism with the Church, it is easy to be disheartened.

So it helps me to take stock of our reasons for hope, even in such times.

As well as the fundamental ones already mentioned, I think there are many more we can consider. For example, it is easy to imagine that the problems we face are unprecedented; but in fact the reverse is the case. A brief consideration of the Arian heresy, universally, or the Reformation, locally, will serve to remind us that bishops can go off the rails.

(Someone had a go at me recently for failing to trust the bishops 'appointed by the Holy Father.' I thought that odd. In the light of both history, and indeed the recent +Conry scandal, it is clear that bishops can and do go off the rails; moreover, to imagine that the Holy Father appoints bishops other than based on the information he receives from those who know the candidates, seems odd to me. It is not St John Paul I think was remiss in the appointment of +Conry...)

But to return to my theme, in both the crises I mentioned, it was the lay faithful who kept the Faith.

Moreover, what we face now is not, in fact, as grave a crisis as either of those. We have several bishops in England and Wales who are  trustworthy, and who do work tirelessly to pass on the Faith as they have received it.

Also, it is not outside the wisdom of Providence that we are born in this place and in this time. Rather than lose heart, we should give thanks for everything, always.

Moreover, it is not my responsibility, as a lay man, to govern the Church in this country. My priorities start with my personal salvation, my responsibilities of state as a husband and father, and my professional, parish and social relationships. Beyond that, of course, I do have responsibilities in the wider Church: but the fact that I do not see how to get the Church in E&W back on track should not weigh too heavily upon me.

If I discharge my immediate responsibilities with Faith, Hope and Charity, then I am in fact doing the larger part of my duty. If I want to do more, all well and good, but I should not lose sight of those first priorities: and they are things that I can have a direct impact on.

So whilst I will continue to decry the sorry state of the CBCEW, and to ponder what can usefully be done, I will try not to allow that to distract me from what I should really be doing: in the sure and certain hope that salvation is won for me, and freely offered, if I just accept the graces being poured out on me.

Now, I had a talent buried around here somewhere; perhaps I'd better try to dig it up and put it to work.

So what do I make of ++Nichols?

A number of my friends has (sic: tpot - ed.) been contacting me recently to ask what I make of Cardinal Nichols, in the light of my recent posts (see here). Do I think he is apostate? Do I think he is just a coward?

The answer, clearly, is 'Who am I to judge?' That is a correct answer, in this case. I have no access to the inner workings of his mind; and it is not, in any case, my job to judge his intentions or his moral qualities. Another honest answer is that I do not know.

However, what I do know, and what I believe we are entitled, and possibly obliged, to reach a judgement on, is whether I think his speech, actions and omissions provide leadership which we should follow. I do not think that they do.

I have no notion whether he is a good man; I believe he is not a good Bishop. That is, I do not think that he is discharging the responsibilities of his office well. I do not know why that may be the case, and that is not my business. 

What I have concluded is, in any case, a grave judgement to reach, and I do not reach it lightly. But the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us: Bishops, with priests as co-workers, have as their first task, 'to preach the Gospel of God to all men', in keeping with the Lord's command. They are 'heralds of faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers' of the apostolic faith 'endowed with the authority of Christ.' §888 There is lots more, besides.

It is, of course, a high and difficult vocation, and I am sure that those who are elevated to the episcopacy are subject to diabolic attacks far beyond those visited upon ordinary laity; so bishops need and deserve our prayers and support.

Nonetheless, it seems abundantly clear to me that ++Nichols simply does not meet the description of his role found in the Catechism. His famous: 'Who knows what's down the road?' does not preach the Gospel, but obfuscates it; and it seems to me to be typical of many of his utterances, both in public and in private correspondence. He is gravely implicated in the +Conry scandal and others, and seems happy to pass those off simply with platitudes about praying for everybody. He seems to operate as a politician, rather than a spiritual leader.

What, then, should we do?

In the first instance, we should continue to pray for him, and for all our bishops.

But I think the time for embarrassed silence about episcopal failings (if ever that was appropriate) is past. It was that which allowed the +Conry scandal to go on for so long, damaging so many people. It is the same virtue-turned-to-vice (ie loyalty and discretion turned to collusion) that allowed the clerical abuse scandal; and it continues to eat away at the Church with every blind eye turned to priests and bishops behaving scandalously. 

We, too, have a duty to preach the Gospel, and if anyone teaches a Gospel different to the one we have received from the Apostles, we cannot collude by our silence; even if motivated by loyalty or a fear of scandal.

So I don't need to know why ++Nichols is so keen on the militant LGBT agenda of the Queering the Church lobby; or why he thinks it acceptable for CAFOD to operate against Catholic teaching; or why he thinks 'Oh dear, let's pray,' is a sufficient response to the +Conry scandal; or why ...  (but you can read my previous posts for the full litany). 

His motivations are not the issue: what is at issue is that people risk being misled into thinking that homosexual relationships are compatible with the Faith; that Humanae Vitae is optional teaching; and so on. Here, the laity has a responsibility to stand up and say that the Cardinal is wrong, if that is the effect of his silence and ambiguities. For a bishop has no authority separate from the Roman Pontiff (CCC 883), and the Holy Father is, of course, as he has assured us, a loyal son of the Church, and therefore, of course, loyal to its teachings as expressed in the Catechism and elsewhere.

I should say that I have asked my own bishop if I had got this all wrong, or if there were any reasons of prudence or charity that meant I should hold my peace about all this: he did not answer those questions directly, but referred me to the Cardinal in his role as Chair of the Conference. So I asked the Cardinal the same questions: he too did not answer them (or indeed any of my questions) directly. 

So I am thrown back on my own judgement. I feel as though I asked my spiritual fathers for bread and was tossed a stone.

This seems a bleak place to have arrived at: but there is always hope - and that will be the subject of my next post.

Nichols contra mundum

Today I was flattered to be asked to compère the finals of The Pastoral Challenge, in which one man takes on leading figures from the history of the Church, to see who can come up with the most pastoral responses to a range of topical questions.

Ben (as question master): A member of your flock asks you about homosexual relations, and whether the Church will ever sanction gay marriage. How do you reply?

Paul, Tarsus: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Ben: Sorry, Paul: that's not quite the Pastoral tone we seek these days. Who else?

Basil, Caesaria: He who is guilty of unseemliness with males will be under discipline for the same time as adulterers...

Ben: No, no, no! You're really not getting this. Who can show them how it's done?

Nichols, Westminster: Who knows what's down the road?

Ben: That's more like it. So one point to Nichols, rest of the world nil.  On to our next question: Someone suggests that those living in open and manifest sin should not receive the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist. How do you handle that one?

Paul, Tarsus: Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

Ben: Oh dear, oh dear...

John Paul, Wadowice: Anyone conscious of grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion.

Ben: I'm sorry, you're still not getting the hang of this. Any other approaches? What might you say to such a person?

Nichols, Westminster: Hold your tongue!

Ben: The perfect Pastoral response! That's Nichols 2, the rest of the world nil.  And so, on to our third question. One of your flock asks you about personal sin, and whether it is something we should worry about.

Matthew, Capernaum: The Lord said: If thy right eye is an occasion of thy falling into sin, pluck it out and cast it away from thee; better to lose one part of thy body, than to have the whole cast into Hell. And if thy right hand is an occasion of falling, cut it off, and cast it away from thee; better to lose one of thy limbs than to have thy whole body cast into hell.

Ben: I'm still not quite hearing that Pastoral note we are looking for. Anyone?

Nichols, Westminster: I think all that talk of sin was a misguided attempt to motivate people.

Ben: We're heading for a whitewash here: it's Nichols 3, the rest of the world, nil. And finally, on a more self reflecting note: someone suggests that you may have betrayed your Lord. How do you respond?

Peter, Bethsaida: (weeps, bitterly).

Nichols, Westminster: I honestly can't remember.

Ben (enthusistically): The perfect response, yet again. So a complete whitewash there, with Nichols of Westminster routing a world team with a score of five:nil.

The Postbag

Cardinals are, after all, very busy people. Moreover, sometimes the memory fails a bit. So it is not surprising that not every letter is answered.

Nonetheless, I thought it might be interesting to see the incoming postbag, even though none of these letters have yet been answered.

***

Dear Cardinal

Why was Kieran Conry elevated to the episcopate when everyone knew?

Yours sincerely, 

Worried, of Arundel and Brighton

***

Dear Cardinal

I am so pleased that I can now divorce my wife and shack up with my secretary, and know that within the year I will be OK with the Church again.

Thank you so much,

Amoroso, of Westminster

***

Dear Cardinal

My dad has just left my mum for another man. When she asked him what the hell he thought the future held for them, he answered 'Who knows what's down the road?' 

She blames you.

Can you explain?

With love,

Distressed, of Hemel Hempstead


***

Dear Cardinal

I was considering a career in the priesthood, but was reluctant to commit as I also quite like the ladies. Do I gather that is not an impediment and that I will still be able to claim to have done a good job if ever I am found out by the press, without fear of your contradicting that?

Yours,

Ambitious, of Coventry


***

Dear Cardinal,

I want to send my son to Cardinal Vaughan School, but now it's like playing the Lottery!

Thanks for not very much.

A Practicing Catholic Parent, Acton


***

Dear Cardinal

Thank you for your solicitous care for the LGBT? Community. Queering the Church is such an important mission, so we are grateful to you for your support, in face of all the oppression of those who would demonise us.

Love and kisses,

XXXX

***

Dear Cardinal

I was going to write to ask your advice on amnesia, but I can't remember why.

Forgetfully,

Can't remember my name? Nor where I live nor how I voted nor when I knew.

***

Dear Cardinal

Since my husband walked out on me, I have struggled to bring up our four kids on my own. I have worked hard to keep an amorous colleague, whom I really like, at a safe distance, as I don't want to risk any occasion of sin, or of scandal to my kids.

It is hard work and I am very lonely. I thought this was the right  thing to do, and I try to offer my sufferings up.

Am I a mug?

Yours,

Solitaria, North Finchley


***

Dear Cardinal

You be good, and we won't tell. Capisce?

(unsigned)

***

Dear Cardinal,

I have struggled with Same Sex Attraction for many years. 

I have not always managed to avoid falling into temptation, but I continue to try, and by frequent use of the Sacrament of Penance, I am gradually mastering my desires.

This has been a long and painful journey, but I have been encouraged by my parish priest, who has been both understanding of my personal struggles, and clear in expounding the teaching of the Church as found in the Catechism.

However, last Saturday, when I went to Confession and told him that I had nothing serious to confess, he was uncharacteristically upset, and suggested I might as well indulge my every desire. 

I was shocked and upset, after all I have been through, and we exchanged heated words. He referred me to you.

Can you explain?

Yours, 

A Struggling Sinner, Soho

***

Dear Cardinal

My partner and I would like to apply for the jobs of Chief Executive and Head of PR at CAFOD.

We are very committed to Justice and Peace, extremely well-networked, and like some aspects of the Catholic Church's approach.  In fact my partner goes to Church when he visits his mum, as she is a practicing Catholic (he hasn't come out to her yet).

I understand that our (what I believe you call) irregular situation, and the fact that we demur from some of the Church's more demanding teachings are no bar to running a large Catholic organisation - as long as we keep the people in the pews in the dark, which I am sure we can manage between us.

And if you can find a bishop to celebrate a service for our anniversary, that would be lovely.

Yours,

Valentine, Eccleston Square

Musing on Trust

In my last blog entry, I suggested that the bishops in England and Wales needed to earn our trust again.

I have blogged about trust and the bishops before, here, prompted by my mistrust of CAFOD and my recognition that the problems went higher up the chain.

It seems to me that at the heart of the bishops' role is to lead, teach and support us in the two key areas of faith and morals: that is, what we are to believe and how we are to behave.

The more I reflect on it, the more uneasy I am; for I am increasingly drawn to the conclusion that there are members of the hierarchy who are not to be trusted in these key areas.

With regard to morals, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that a number of our bishops do not believe in the teaching of Humanae Vitae, nor with the teaching on the objective sinfulness of homosexual and extra-marital sexual relations; even the Church's prophetic witness against abortion seems too much for some. (I should, as ever, make it quite clear that there are honourable exceptions to this).  With regard to faith, it is hard to be clear what they believe, and in particular that there is any understanding of the Church as the One True Faith, of Original Sin and Personal Sin, and the importance of the Sacramental life for the salvation of souls.

Consider, for example:

• The failure to preach about Humanae Vitae, anywhere, ever, by almost anyone;

• The continued promotion of The Tablet, as though it were a Catholic journal, despite its dissent from Humanae Vitae;

• The Filochowski/Pendergast scandal, when +Crowley was prepared to celebrate a Mass in honour of the 25 year anniversary of a homosexual relationship - a Mass eventually celebrated by the then-Rector of Ushaw Seminary, and attended by the bishop;

• The failure of the Conference to back up +Egan’s important statement that politicians who voted against Catholic teaching should repent before presenting themselves for Holy Communion; 

• The way in which  ++Nichols supports the 'Queering The Church'-led LGBT Masses; and the fact that his only clear statement on the subject was to tell those who questioned this policy to 'hold their tongues;'

• ++Nichols' saying that talking about sin was a misguided attempt to motivate people;

• The failure of  CES to hold anything approaching a Catholic line, and the appointment to it of a man who as an MP had voted consistently in ways that are diametrically opposed to Catholic teaching on, for example, abortion, contraception, 'gay' relationships etc.;

• The Conference’s stance in favour of Civil Partnerships, which, it seems to me, paved the way for the disaster of Same Sex ‘Marriage;’

• Catholic Marriage Care offering relationship support to homosexual couples;

• The failure to correct the public statements of people like Professor Beattie, when she opines that Catholics may, in good conscience, ignore the teaching of the Church on matters of sexual morality;

• The episcopal silence as Cafod has drifted away from Catholic principles (eg redefining abstinence in ways that are far from Catholic, and promoting condoms);

• Personal conversations I have had with various bishops; for example one bishop (now retired, when I lived in another diocese) who told me that the Catholic Schools couldn’t teach the Faith, because many parents didn’t follow it, and their children might think they were doing something wrong.

• The hostility shown toward +O'Donoghue for his 'Fit for Mission' project: praised by the Vatican, he was disappointed by the response of his brother bishops;

• The welcome extended to the dissenting group ACTA and the contrasting hostility displayed to those who seek to defend the traditional Faith;

• The promotion of educational programmes that are at best deficient and at worst heretical for use in our schools;

• The silence around the whole +Conry affair;

• The silence when +Conry was denigrating Confession (and his many other misrepresentations of the Catholic Faith);

• The fact that +Conry's deliberate failure to teach on sexual morality was not noticed - because he was not the only bishop to be refraining from such teaching;

• The '+Conry shrug' (exemplified in the link in my last post, but also practiced by ++Nichols when asked whether the Church would eventually bless homosexual unions);

• The equivocation we hear from so many bishops whenever we might expect a clear explanation of any difficult aspect of the Faith.

Of course, I may be joining the dots in the wrong way when tempted to doubt some of our bishops with regard to their adherence to the Church's teaching; as I noted in my previous post, another explanation could be that some are actually under the power of someone else, who has the dirt on them. 

In either case, I would be dishonest if I did not say that my trust in many of  them is seriously undermined, and I do not believe I am alone in that.

As I suggested in my earlier post on trust, I think that in order for someone to trust someone else, they must believe in his good intentions, his competence to deliver them, and his integrity. When it comes to many of our bishops, somewhere in that mix something is missing.

When seeking to re-build trust, open and honest communication are essential. So I would suggest that the hierarchy needs to be open and honest at this time.

For myself, I would particularly welcome a few assurances:

• That each member of the hierarchy accepts without reservation the teaching of the Church, especially and explicitly including the teachings on human sexuality and on original and personal sin, the unique role of the Catholic Church as the one true Church, the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, and the need for sacramental confession;

• That each member of the hierarchy swears that he teaches and acts free from any duress or blackmail;

• That each member of the hierarchy states what he has learned from the +Conry affair, and what he personally will undertake to do to avoid the risk of any recurrence.

That is what I would welcome: however I have no reason to expect it will come to pass.

Which raises the question: what are the faithful to do when they no longer trust many of their bishops?

More on Ignorance, and other, darker, matters

I have been brooding more on ignorance, and particularly what one might call 'tactical ignorance.' (I do like finding ever-more evocative adjectives to place in front of 'ignorance').

Remember this?

Bishop Conry is asked whether the Church might quietly change its mind in a hundred years' time (on the impossibility of ordaining women to the priesthood). He replies: 'Well, according to Pope John Paul the Second this was a definitive statement, wasn't it. But, um, I couldn't possibly comment.' (chuckle). It is the knowing chuckle that gets me every time. He is joined in it by the interviewer and the other interviewee, one Professor Beattie...

It reminded me of another profession of ignorance: 

Stephen Sackur: Some of their (ie CofE) vicars are also prepared to sanction gay unions. That church is showing flexibility. Is the Catholic church not going to have to do the same eventually?

+Nichols: I don't know. Who knows what's down the road?

It seems to me that in both cases, a profession of ignorance was used tactically, to avoid giving a straight answer. 

And again I was reminded of the incident in St Luke, Chapter 20, to which I referred yesterday.

Could it really be that our bishops (one ex- and one now a cardinal) both used this tactic to avoid saying (or even teaching) the truth? And if so, was that for fear of what the people might say if they told the truth?  Or, for fear of revealing that they really don't believe aspects of the Faith it is their vocation and duty to uphold?

These are worrying questions.

Unfortunately they are not the full extent of my current worries.

I have also been reflecting on the start of my brother's illustrious career in Her Majesty's Armed Forces. Many years ago, when he was undertaking his initial officer training, he was asked if there were anything in his background which might be an embarrassment (or worse) to him, should it come to light later.

The MOD made it clear than anything confessed now, unless a serious criminal issue, would not stand in his way; but that it was essential that he did confess anything of that nature. As he explained it to me, it was to ensure that he could never be the subject of moral duress or blackmail. So he owned up to having been a regular at a pub where plenty of dope was smoked, and to having smoked some himself.

He was reminded that he should not do so any more, and that was that. And, as I say, he subsequently had an illustrious career, and, I am sure, was never compromised in his duty to his Queen or Country by any shadow from the past.

And so we return to the subject of the hierarchy in this country. We know from his own admission, that +Conry allowed his illicit affairs to affect his  behaviour in office: he refrained from preaching on sexual morality. We also know that ++O'Brien was only 'outed' when he offended his former lovers by preaching in a way they didn't like.

We also know that many other odd things are said, done, glossed over or permitted by other members of the hierarchy. We know that reports of +Conry's misbehaviour were submitted to the highest levels: and yet we hear of the 'shock' of the news of his resignation and the reasons for it.  

All of which raises the question, how are we to trust our bishops?

How can we be confident that when ++Nichols (to take an example at random, you understand) refuses to teach clearly that the Church can never sanction gay unions, or permits the scandalous dissident LGBT Masses, that he is doing so in good conscience? Is it not at least conceivable that he is under duress? That someone, somewhere has something on him?

When our letters are unanswered, is it because the poor bishop has so many letters from so many nutters, that he simply can't get through them all? Or is it because we have asked questions to which he really does not wish to give an answer?

We really should not have to think like that about our hierarchy: but that seems to me (and not only to me) to be, as the unlovely phrase has it, the situation in which we find ourselves.

Of course, there are those amongst the hierarchy who do not excite such suspicions: I do not want to tar all of them with this very sticky brush. There are some who teach and preach the Faith without equivocation, and whom nobody has any reason to suspect knew anything of these murky affairs. And then there are the others. 

We must pray for all our bishops, of course. Naturally enough, the Devil will always seek to attack the Holy Father and the bishops as a priority: I am quite sure that they are subject to spiritual assault far beyond anything I can imagine. Nonetheless, in this instance prayer is not enough. We need to make clear to CBCEW what we expect: and that includes apologies, explanations, and reform. We need to know that they have learned from these terrible debacles, and they need to earn our trust again.