The Soho Mass Saga...

I am delighted that +Nichols has at last brought an end to the long-running scandal of the Soho Masses (about which I have blogged on more than one occasion, most recently here)

I assume that the original intention of this pastoral provision was to reach out to those experiencing same-sex attraction and other difficulties with their sexual and social life, and better incorporate them into the Church, to help them to face the difficulties they encounter in a truly Christian way: that is, in conformity with the Gospel and the teaching of the Church.

However, in practice, they have deviated far from that ideal.  Terence Weldon, one of the prime movers of the whole set up, runs the blog Queering the Church which gives you some idea of their (or at least his) agenda, and perverted theology.  It is clearly a long way from anything that could be recognisable as according with Catholic teaching.

It is also interesting that he is seeing the move to Farm Street as an opportunity for what he calls 'Catholic LGBT ministry' to be 'strengthened, and expanded.'

However, as his blog reveals, his idea of Catholic LGBT ministry is a long way from Catholic.

So whilst I welcome the end of this particular source of scandal, I will watch what happens at Farm Street with great interest - as will, I am sure, +Nichols, and of course our excellent Nuncio.

F.D.

It is one of the ironies of history that shortly after he was awarded the title Fidei Defensor by the Pope, Henry Vlll broke with Rome...  It was something to do with an attack on the integrity of marriage.

The true Fidei Defensor then was perhaps St John Fisher, the only member of the hierarchy who stood up to this abuse of power, and paid for it with his life (there were many others, of course, but none among the hierarchy).

Fast forward a few hundred years and we see a new abuse of power; Henry's successor has distanced himself from  the F.D. title by declaring he will instead be a defender of faiths, the government is launching the most comprehensive attack on the integrity of marriage, and the hierarchy...

Silence.

Doubtless, they are ruminating on their strategy.  Perhaps they are wondering how to respond without compromising their ability to wield some political power and mitigate the worst excesses of the destruction of marriage.  Who knows?  Perhaps St John Fisher's colleagues had similar deliberations.  Who knows?

There is one bishop, +Philip Egan of Portsmouth, who may not have a strategy but has a conscience.  He knows that his duty is to preach the Kingdom in season or out. His now is the title Fidei Defensor.

++Nichols remarked a while back: 'Who knows what's down the road?'

I may be less educated, less holy and less most other things than him, but I can tell him what I learned from my parents, and they from a more robust teaching of the Faith than we get nowadays: death, judgement, heaven or hell.

St John Fisher, pray for us.

Old Fashioned Sin

What was it ++Nichols said about all that talk about sin? A misguided attempt to motivate people, wasn't it?  It would seem he thinks we have grown out of that and are now a mature pilgrim people wending our way happily heavenwards.

Someone ought to tell the Holy Father. When he was a mere Cardinal, he wrote In the Beginning, a series of sermons on Genesis, subsequently published as a book. In the fourth sermon, he addresses head-on the problem of sin, and its disappearance from even religious instruction: 'Hardly anyone [...] dares to proclaim the prophetic message: Repent! Hardly anyone dares to make to our age this elementary evangelical appeal, with which the Lord wants to induce us to acknowledge our sinfulness, to do penance, and to become other than what we are.'

Later on he writes: 'Thus sin has become a suppressed subject, but everywhere we can see that, although it is suppressed, it has nonetheless remained real.'

He even insists on Original Sin!  And it is these realities, Original Sin and actual sin that help us to understand our need of redemption. For in the Holy Father's mind, the Old Testament always points to, is explained by, and finds its fulfilment in the New, and specifically in Christ and His saving work.  And so he concludes: May we be touched by the words of Jesus in their entirety: 'The kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.'


H/t Catholic Book Reviews for reminding me of this great book.

Mark Dowd Wrongs King Canute (and Archbishop Nichols)

It was, of course, entirely predictable.


Once the Archbishops wrote their letter, we knew the The Tablet would dissent - and it did.  We also knew that QUEST and its allies would have a hissy fit - and they did.


Mark Dowd is quoted as saying: “Probably the Archbishop resembles King Canute standing on the shores with the waves coming in. It’s really a question of the tide of history turning and there’s very little that can be done about it.”


Here he displays as much ignorance as he does stupidity.  If the tide had been turning, then Canute would have looked as though he was commanding the waves.  And that's the least of Dowd's stupidity.


Canute stood on the shore not to try to turn the waves back: he was far wiser than that.  He commanded the waves to turn back precisely because he knew that the would not.  He was demonstrating to his sycophantic courtiers that there are limits to what a king can do.  


Let us hope that Archbishop Nichols has also realised that there are limits to what an archbishop can do: he cannot command the truth to reverse itself.  If he resembles Canute in that way, then we can only applaud - and support him with prayers, of course.


H/t Deacon Nick at Protect the Pope

Bored with the gay issue...

I am completely bored with the whole militant gay issue, and the Soho Masses debacle.  I keep resolving to write no more on the topic, and then something happens, such as Archbishop Nichols' statement and I feel it is too important to ignore.


Now on the comments section of that same Herald article, Terence Weldon has written:

Hooray for the sanity, pastoral wisdom of Archbishop Nichols, ever mindful of the whole of Catholic teaching on the subject - including clause 2358, which the orthotoxic Catholics, using pseudo-religion as a cover for bigotry and homophobia, too frequently ignore.

This is, frankly, a bit rich.  For someone who campaigns for tolerance and understanding, 'orthotoxic... pseudo-religion... bigotry...homophobia...' is pretty judgemental stuff. (Terence Weldon, in case the name means nothing to you, is the author of the unpleasant Queering the Church blog, and one of the co-ordinators of the Soho Gay Mass)


By 'clause 2358' he presumable means §2358 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  The language is revealing: 'clause' is the language of political campaigning, and in particular in this context we remember the fuss over 'clause 28' - more correctly Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, which was designed to prohibit the active promotion of homosexuality in schools etc.


His argument seems to be that by promoting a Catholic understanding of homosexuality, people like me are orthotoxic pedlars of pseudo-religion indulging in bigotry and homophobia, and specifically that we are ignoring §2358 of the Catechism.


So let us look at §2358, and place it in its context by looking also at §2357 and §2359, and the relevant section headers:

PART THREE LIFE IN CHRIST  

SECTION TWO THE TEN COMMANDMENTS  

CHAPTER TWO "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF"  

ARTICLE 6 THE SIXTH COMMANDMENT 

You shall not commit adultery.¹¹³ 

You have heard that it was said, "You shall not commit adultery." But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.¹¹⁴

[snip] 

Chastity and homosexuality 

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,¹⁴¹ tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."¹⁴² They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. 

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

That is all pretty clear, I think; and it is also clear that Terence Weldon, in claiming that proclaiming the truth about homosexuality is an assault on the respect, compassion, and sensitivity owed to people with homosexual desires or practices, is wrenching the paragraph out of context.


I am full of compassion for people so afflicted, and pray for them.  However I do believe that they are afflicted, and it is that which Weldon and fellow gay activists cannot tolerate.  They deny the truths of §2357 and §2359 believing instead that gay sex is not only acceptable but a positive good. It is their using the Mass, and even more the collusion of some Catholic clerics with that, to proclaim that anti-Catholic worldview that I and others find so... well, blasphemous is not overstating it.


If, as seems to be the case, Archbishop Nichols has finally become aware of what is really going on, and is prepared to address it, then he too will need our prayers, as he will be in the eye of the storm.

More on the Soho Masses

The Soho Mass scandal has rumbled on and on.


Today the Catholic Herald runs a story under the headline Archbishop Vincent Nichols ‘reaffirms’ Soho Masses  However, the story actually says something rather different.


I visited the Westminster Diocese website, but could find no trace of the story there (though that may be simply because I got lost in its somewhat labyrinthine structure...) so I am reliant on the Herald's reporting.


It seems to me that the important paragraph of the Archbishop's quoted remarks is this one:

At the present time consideration is being given to the circumstances in which these Masses are celebrated to ensure that their purpose is respected and that they are not occasions for confusion or opposition concerning the positive teaching of the Church on the meaning of human sexuality or the moral imperatives that flow from that teaching, which we uphold and towards which we all strive.

This seems to me to suggest that he is looking seriously at doing something about this scandal.


As far as reaffirming goes, what he is actually quoted as saying is: 

As we approach the fifth anniversary of the establishment of a pastoral provision for Catholics of a same-sex orientation at the Church of Our Lady of the Assumption, I would like reaffirm the intention and purpose of this outreach.

Reaffirming the intention and purpose is very different to reaffirming current practice and abuse.  Further, he referred to:

...three essential foundations: the dignity of all persons created by God, the moral principles concerning chastity and the Church’s teaching on sexual activity, and the pastoral care of Catholics who are of same-sex orientation. All who participate in the Mass are called to live the church’s teaching through an ongoing conversion of life.

So let us hope and pray that this is really what it looks like: the start of a process to put this scandal behind us.; and may God strengthen and protect him if he does so, because it will not be pretty...

Too nuanced by half...?

In 2003, when Civil Partnerships were on the horizon, the bishops were against them:

 We believe the government’s proposals to create civil partnerships for same sex couples would not promote the common good, and we therefore strongly oppose them. 

In a press conference in November 2011 (as reported by The Tablet), Archbishop Nichols reportedly said:

We would want to emphasise that civil partnerships actually provide a structure in which people of the same sex who want a lifelong relationship [and] a lifelong partnership can find their place and protection and legal provision.” 

The Tablet crowed, and Catholic Voices duly leaped in to explain (though they didn't manage to explain it to me) how that was not a complete volte face.


Yesterday, following a piece in the Guardian, the relevant part of the 2003 statement was posted afresh on the Catholic Bishops' Website as a clarification:

Following a Guardian report today, 23 February 2012, it is important to clarify the position taken by the Bishops' Conference in 2003 in response to theGovernment Consultation on "Civil partnership – A framework for the legal recognition of same–sex couples”. Civil Partnerships are now part of the framework of British law. The current debate is about the specific nature of the institution of marriage and its distinctive place in the fabric of society.
23. We believe the government’s proposals to create civil partnerships for same sex couples would not promote the common good, and we therefore strongly oppose them. They would in the long term serve to undermine marriage and the family for the reasons set out in paragraphs 9-12 above. They are not needed to defend fundamental human rights or remedy significant injustices for same-sex couples, as these have either already been substantially addressed or can largely be addressed by the couple entering into contractual arrangements privately. Moreover, the government’s proposals do nothing to tackle what is in fact a very much bigger issue, namely the lack of rights enjoyed by cohabiting heterosexual couples and their children, many of whom wrongly believe they are protected by ‘common law marriage.’ The government needs to publicise their lack of rights, and strongly advocate the obvious solution, which is marriage.

I welcome this clarification and the reiteration that our bishops are strongly opposed to civil partnerships.  But with the best will in the world, I cannot reconcile the Archbishops remarks at the press conference with this statement. Is it me? Am I dense? Can anyone explain?


However, let us not overlook the good point in all this: that the bishops stand where they should in this latest reiteration, and despite what the Tablet, and even Catholic Voices, seem to think, they are not now pro Civil Partnerships, even as codified...

Churching queers or queering the Church?

The scandal over the Soho Masses will not go away. Now, as James Preece has highlighted, we have the extraordinary phenomenon of a Mass being advertised on the Durex www site (By the way, remember that line from the Beatles song: Love is all you need? The Durex slogan is ‘Durex all you need.’ What’s love got to do with it...?)

To the uninformed, there may be a reasonable case for the gay masses: to reach out to people of a homosexual, lesbian, or other disordered sexual orientation and lead them back into the church. In fact that is the gloss put on them in comments on blogs by someone signing himself Terence or Terry.

Strangely a character called Terence runs a blog called Queering the Church. This Terence is involved in organising the Soho Masses, and a quick glance at his blog reveals that his agenda is not at all about bringing queers (his word...) back to Church so much as making the Church queer. Hence the title and content of his blog.

Archbishop Nichols said, referring to critics of the Soho Masses:

and anybody from the outside who is trying to cast a judgement on the people who come forward to communion really ought to learn to hold their tongue.

What he doesn't get is that it is his policy we are criticising: this whole debacle is causing grave scandal and risks losing souls.

The Fear of the Lord: an outdated notion?

The old language – of mortal sin, for example – was, he says, a misguided attempt to motivate the faithful.
"Fear is never a good motivation. The whole point of the Catholic journey is that it is a journey, and we try to hold together high ideals and understanding. That is the same for people who struggle in whatever way with their sexuality. It's an aim."

Thus +Vincent Nichols, according to Neil Tweedie.

But I seem to remember learning that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

And further, I am sure I was taught as a child that fear of punishment (I believe Hell was mentioned, so I'm really showing my age) was a sufficient motive for penitence, even though Love of God was the gold standard.

And as for the concept of mortal sin: surely if there is something I can do which is so terrible that it can put my soul at risk of eternal damnation (as the Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states) then my bishops and priests should let me know?

Pray for our bishops...

Nichols v. Pepinster

Despite the BBC's typically misleading headline on its www site (Archbishop says contraception 'attractive') Archbishop Nichols is reported as saying that although he can see why the promotion of condoms etc appears to be an attractive idea to reduce 3rd world poverty, his message really was:

"If we solve the poverty then consistently we know that the birth rate comes down.

"If we provide people with security, then consistently birth rates will come down. And they're the radical issues that we should be addressing, not short term intrusive fixes."

But Pepinster, editor of the Pill, used her interview on the Today programme (about 07.20 - can't yet post link as programme still on air) to undermine Church teaching: 'many Catholics don't even know about Humanae Vitae..., I can't remember hearing it preached from the pulpit,... most Catholics have no issue with contraception,... many priests and some cardinals and bishops say in the case of AIDS when condoms are used to preserve life then that's a good thing,' and so on.

How long can this disgraceful woman be allowed to run what is alleged to be a Catholic paper?

But perhaps she has over-stepped the mark this time: if it comes to a straight fight, I'd back Archbishop Nichols every time, both on principle and in practice!