The Desperate Need for Approval (ii)

I have been reflecting a little more on the desperate need for approval, about which I commented in my previous post. So this is a thinking-aloud post of half-formed thoughts.

It seems to me that large numbers of people cannot distinguish between approval and love. Time and again, people take disagreement as a sign of enmity.

Likewise, I see many parents who think that to be a good loving parent, they must never upset or disagree with, still less discipline, their child.

The result, of course, is spoilt children. (Not least because the attempt to avoid upsetting and disagreeing is futile, and therefore leads to erratic veering between over-indulgence and irritability).

And I think the longer term result is adults who have a desperate desire for approval.

And that, perhaps, is why the not-so-difficult concept of 'Hate the sin, but love the sinner' seems incomprehensible to many today. If you loved me, of course you would approve of whatever I do! What else could love mean?

So perhaps that is the challenge that we face: to help people to understand - more, to experience - what love really means: and that it is not the same as constant and unconditional approval.

On Being Educated

I am always intrigued when people send me links to stuff that is designed to educate me. It has happened before (here for example) and has just happened again. Maureen Clarke (@retrochbabe) on Twitter sent me a link to this piece in the NCR.

As before, I wonder what ignorance has been detected for which the link is the antidote. I ask myself, why do I need educating by this particular article?  And as before, I struggle to find the answer.

The article seems to be arguing that the new rite of Mass is good (and the old, bad) because the new rite supports the new understanding of the Church developed at Vatican 2, whereas the old subverts it, in favour of the old understanding.

I dispute that analysis, of course - so perhaps that is why I am perceived to need educating.  

But what strikes me as funny, in an ironic sort of way, is that the progressive people who believe this (eg the author, and, I assume, Maureen Clarke) are very close to the sedevacantists who believe this; much closer to them than I am, or those who believe in a hermeneutic of continuity.

If I accepted the thrust of the argument in this preposterous NCR article, then I would be unable to attend the new Mass in good conscience: for I hold to the religion of the apostles and the saints, founded by Christ and unchanging in essentials. If Vatican 2 introduced something so radically at odds with that, that the Mass of Ages was suddenly subversive, then I could have nothing to do with it.

But of course Vatican 2 did no such thing; and it is only the extreme progressives and the extreme reactionaries who think that it did. Strange bedfellows...

A Lifestyle Choice

I don't often read Peter Hitchens (or indeed anything in the Mail or Mail on Sunday, you will be shocked to learn) but somebody pointed me at this column and it set me thinking.

I am not sure precisely what the Chancellor meant in calling full-time motherhood 'a lifestyle choice'; but then I suspect that he wasn't sure either, so that's OK.  It sounded, at least, somewhat disapproving.

Antonia was born some 22 years ago, and we were younger and (a little) more in tune with the spirit of the age. Anna (Mrs T.) was a successful professional: a Finance Director at the age of 30. She earned about the same (on a regular basis) as I earned erratically from my freelance work.  So it seemed sensible for her to keep working (she enjoyed her work) and arrange for childcare for Ant.  We did that: it was a bit stressful taking her to a nursery which she clearly enjoyed less than our company, and it was hard for Anna, who felt guilty when at work, thinking about her baby, and guilty when at home, thinking about her work...

Then Bernadette arrived, a couple of years later.  Anna decided to go part-time, and we got a nanny for the girls.

It didn't work. Her employer was very supportive, but nonetheless, Anna was expected to do exactly the same in part-time hours as she had been doing in full-time hours, for rather less pay.  The nanny, though a delightful girl, was not as intelligent or as stimulating, or as fun for the girls to be with, and certainly was not passing on the kinds of values and lifestyle (there's that word again) that we wished. A simple example was that she rarely read them any stories...

So Anna quit, and has been a full-time mother (more or less) ever since.  I say more or less, as she has done some part-time short-term jobs, and also a significant amount of voluntary work, once all the kids were at school - but nearly all during school hours.

The benefits have been significant: her relationship with all of the children is excellent; they have all grown up happy, healthy, confident and secure.  They all practice their Faith.

But of course there has been a cost. Whilst we are not impoverished, we have an income of about 50% of that which we would have had if she had stayed in employment, and with no security attached to it either (and indeed it has fluctuated fairly dramatically over the years: it can be feast or famine here...) She has no pension of course (and as the one I have paid into for three decades is worth almost nothing, that is significant).

As a result, we tend to go easy on things like holidays: for many years, camping in Scotland was the family holiday. Last year and this, we have pushed the boat out and hired a cottage for a week. But it is a long time - more than a decade - since we had a holiday abroad as a family.

That, I think, is a lifestyle choice; though in fact we see it more as living our vocation. It is a choice we made about how we thought we should live our lives. It was not without costs, including a certain amount of social disapprobation,  but it is one we are both happy with; and we appreciate that it is a choice that we were lucky to be able to make.

But why the Chancellor should look down his nose at it, which seems to be the drift of his remarks, is a mystery to me.

The Explanatory Catechism

I mentioned The Explanatory Catechism on Twitter today, and promised to blog some examples, as people (or the one person who commented, to be precise) hadn't heard of it.

It was published (according to the imprimatur) in 1921, though my copy includes updates referring to 1960, so clearly dates from after that time.

It is essentially the Penny Catechism, of fond memory, but with lots of notes added to give a fuller understanding.

For example:

2. Q Why did God make you? A. God made me to know Him, love Him and serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him for ever in the next.
To know God.  By hearing instructions, reading good books, knowing what He is, and what He has done for us.
To love and serve God. By keeping His commandments and doing all we can to please Him.

5. Q. How is your soul like to God? A. My soul is like to God because it is a spirit and is immortal.
Spirit. An immaterial being, having free-will and understanding, as God, the Angels and our souls. We cannot touch or see a spirit.
Immortal. Not mortal, can never die. The soul has a two-fold life - (1) natural, which it receives at its creation, and never loses; (2) supernatural, or the grace of God, received in Baptism, lost by mortal sin, but regained by a worthy reception of the Sacrament of Penance, or by an act of perfect contrition. 

Amongst other things, that seems to me to give the lie to the claims that the Penny Catechism was all about rote learning without understanding.

What is clear is that the Q & A format is remarkably helpful. Off the top of my head, I can think of several successful examples of its use very recently: YouCat, Did Adam and Eve Have Belly Buttons? and Faith in the Family.  So concerns that the format may be out-of-date seem groundless.

The Penny Catechism also benefits from clarity, simplicity and comprehensiveness.  This version adds depth to those virtues.  Perhaps the CTS should re-publish it.

On Choosing to be Gay

The other day on Twitter, someone said; People should not bury their heads in sand. Kids do not learn to be gay; and then asked me: Honest curiosity, how would a Catholic standpoint address a pupils issues coming to terms with being gay?

This seems to me to be full of assumptions. Further they are assumptions that are being promoted as truths, not just by the gay lobby, but by the government, with its legislation, and by opinion formers, such as the ever-wonderful BBC and the rest of the media, the entertainment industry, academia and so on.

So I think it important to pause and examine them, not least because I believe them to be wrong.

An old friend who self-identifies as gay sent me a link to a video. It poses the question, to various people who do not self-identify as gay: when did you choose to be straight?

My gay friend, and I think many others, seem to think this a killer argument, as the interviewees struggle to answer the question.  If all straight people answered this question honestly, they proclaim, homophobia would be wiped out tomorrow.

The thinking is that because people struggle to answer when they chose to be straight, they will realise that being straight or gay is not a choice.  Therefore it is inherent, and therefore morally irreprehensible.

I think the logic of that argument falls at every stage.

So where do we start? Perhaps here: 'Kids do not learn to be gay.'

That was asserted as a self-evident truth: and presumably for similar reasons to the reasoning behind:  'when did you choose to be straight?'

In fact, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church rightly points out, when discussing homosexuality (§2357 ff) 'Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.'

As with so many other aspects of the development of the human, it seems to be a mixture of (in their broadest senses) both nature and nurture.

That is, some people may, for natural reasons, be more likely to be subject to same sex attraction than others; and the circumstances of their lives will incline some of those more than others to develop such characteristics further.

At that stage, of course, it is largely out of the awareness, let alone control, of the individual, and is therefore entirely blameless.  Nonetheless it is, objectively, a disorder; that is both self-evident from biology, and clear from the teaching of the Church (§2360: 'Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of a man and a woman' and §2357 'Homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered'). People suffering from this disorder must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity (§2358).

Nonetheless, I think that there is a step, and a significant one, from being involuntarily subject to same-sex attraction (SSA), and declaring oneself to be gay (either to oneself or to others.)

I know many people who are subject to SSA; some of them recognise the truth and wisdom of the Church's teaching and live lives of heroic struggle.  Others declare themselves to be gay, and the Church to be wrong.

The latter declare that their 'sexual identity' is not a choice; but in fact it is: they could have chosen to respond as the former group have done.

When is that choice made? They declare, and I imagine sincerely, that they never made such a choice.  But that, along with the question  'when did you choose to be straight?' misunderstands how we develop as human beings.

Consider the case of a brave fireman, who risks his life to save someone from a burning building.  Afterwards someone asks him how he came to be so brave. Typically, he cannot answer the question. He may deny that he is brave, or say that he had no choice; and his colleagues may testify that he has always been that way. 

But the truth is, such a characteristic is built over years of small choices: choosing to act bravely rather than in a cowardly fashion, time after time, until it is a part of his character. So by the time of this incident he is not, perhaps, making a choice for bravery. But over time, he has done so, and consistently at that.

Bravery, like any moral quality can be learned; even though we may have different pre-dispositions for it.  

That is why the Catechism goes on to say that the correct response to homosexual inclinations lies in 'the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom.' (§2359)

Another leap of illogic is the assumption that if 'being gay' is not a choice, it is therefore a good thing. At one level this is understandable: if it is not a choice, then nobody can be culpable: no guilt attaches where there is no choice.  But the lack of guilt does not mean it is a good state. Consider the man born blind: Our Lord assures us that it was through no fault of his or his parents: yet it is still a disorder, a falling away from the perfection of God's design and plan.  

How do such disorders come about?  Gay Christians are fond of saying that they accept the way God has created them.  But that is to ignore this problem: that creation is not the way God created it. Something has happened in between: that primeval catastrophe known as the Fall.

So while one is not culpable of being subject to SSA, it is nonetheless a bad thing.  And where moral responsibility, and therefore the possibility of either virtue or sin, does arise is in how one responds to that condition.

So: 'how would a Catholic standpoint address a pupils issues coming to terms with being gay?'  

Firstly, by not accepting the assumptions of the question as framed. 'Being gay' is not something that simply happens to one.  One may be subject to SSA, and to temptations in that direction, but we would not collude with the Orwellian use of language that is designed to make this seem normative, morally good, and inevitable, as none of that is the case.

I know many of my gay friends would assert that my analysis is not true to their experience.  However, we cannot give primacy to experience in that way, as we know that it is unreliable.  

For example, another friend of mine has left his wife and children.  He argues that he has a better relationship with his children now that he has left than when he lived at home with them in an atmosphere of quarrelling and resentment.  His wife and children (and indeed I, as an outside observer) see a very different reality.  But he has convinced himself, sincerely, that this is the case: because that is something we human beings are very adept at doing.  We know that our intentions are, by and large, good, and so we justify our behaviour, above all to ourselves, by interpreting the evidence in ways that allow us to seem good.  Our old friend confirmation bias has a lot to contribute here.  

We are really not the best judges in our own cases, as we have too much of a vested interest in the outcome!

Other ways we can help the hypothetical child in the question above include sound formation before this issue even raises its head.  We need to teach children that their impulses are not always good (ie Original Sin) and that they can be controlled (personal responsibility).  We do that both by word and by example, and also by helping children make good decisions in small matters (such as not bullying, not reacting angrily to provocation and so on) so that as they confront more difficult challenges (the various temptations of the teenage years) they have some character to draw on, and a good grasp of what is at stake.

Further, we need to teach them the good news of the human vocation; and the truths of the Church's noble vision of chastity; and again we need to set an example: we should ourselves avoid watching inappropriate TV programmes or films, reading indecent books or magazines and so on.

We should teach and exemplify specific disciplines, such as custody of the eyes: a habitual response of avoiding looking at anything or anyone who may provoke lust in us.

Also, however, we do well not to dwell too much on these things. A growing child who is kept busy with education and healthy recreational activities will have less time to dwell on such matter - particularly if responsible adults steer him or her away from inappropriate TV etc.  Allowing teenagers to brood on sex is very bad for them: it takes on a disproportionate part of their thinking and identity.

Moreover, we must teach, and exemplify, heroic courage, so that should one of our children or pupils turn out (despite all we can do to minimise the risk) to be one of those of whom the Catechism speaks 'who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies' they may be able 'to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.' (§2358).

That is done: 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.' (§2359)

Above all, of course, we must love them, and give them the security of knowing that we will love them no matter what, just as God does; but that we love them too much to lie to them or to collude with the world in saying that homosexual acts are anything other than intrinsically disordered.

Stonewall in a Catholic Junior School

I was shocked to read that a Catholic Junior School had invited Stonewall, the homosexual lobbying organisation, to train teachers how to deal with homophobic bullying.

There are several grounds for objection.

One is that I think it is wrong to treat bullying for different reasons separately.  All bullying is bad, not just homophobic or racist or whatever bullying.  The evidence suggests that what kids get bullied for is primarily 'difference' - which can be anything. Why privilege bullying for some differences as more problematic than others?  That leads to all manner of unfortunate consequences.  So training teachers how to deal with homophobic bullying as though that is worse than, or different from, any other kind strikes me as misguided.

The Catholic answer to bullying is good moral character formation, based on the virtues, and grown above all through prayer and the sacraments

Inviting Stonewall into a Catholic School to do such training is worse. Stonewall has an understanding of the human being, and in particular of human sexuality, that is entirely opposed to the much-vaunted Catholic Ethos which Catholic Schools strive to establish.

Even if they say nothing (when visiting the school) about their advocacy of Gay Marriage (for example) Stonewall's whole approach is founded on a set of assumptions about 'being gay' which, because it is also so dominant now in our culture, and in particular propagated with great intensity and frequency by our news and entertainment media, may easily supplant a Catholic understanding in the minds of teachers, with potentially lifelong impacts on the children in their care.

So what are the assumptions that I question, and how do they compare with the teaching of the Catholic Church?

Here are a few of the assumptions that underpin the whole notion of 'some people are gay.'

1 That we all have a 'sexual identity' which is innate and fundamental to us as individuals;

2 That discovering and being honest about our sexual identity is the way to integrity and happiness;

3 That we are able to discover our sexuality at an early age, and should be supported in doing so;

4 That living our sexuality is freedom and maturity;

5 That all sexual identities and orientations are of equal worth and goodness;

6 That questioning any of the above assumptions is homophobic and hateful.

It is worthy of note that there is no scientific consensus on any of those assertions (though there are whole swathes of academia dedicated to promoting them - but that's another story.)


By contrast, the Catholic Church teaches (inter alia) that:

1 Human sexuality is a gift from God, ordered to love and procreation;

2 As a result of the Fall, we are all damaged: how we are is not necessarily how God wants us to be;

3 The only correct use of sexual love is in faithful marriage, open to life;

4 All other sexual inclinations are disordered, and all other sexual activities are sinful, and therefore harmful;

5 True happiness and wellbeing - and the common good - are to be found in subordinating our sexual inclinations and desires to the Divine Plan;

6 We all have a vocation to discover and to live out; and for all of us that includes chastity;

7 True education includes education in the moral virtues: both understanding and practice;

8 We must love our neighbour as ourself; all are subject to disordered inclinations; all are children of God worthy of dignity, respect and love.


Clearly these two sets of assumptions do not sit easily together, which is why Stonewall has no place in a Catholic School.  Its agenda is to normalise a worldview that is at odds with, and indeed in large part hostile to, a Catholic worldview.

Thinking that children at the age of 13 or 14, those turbulent adolescent years, can and should assume a sexual identity, is misguided.  It is also a contributory factor in such shocking cases as the Oxford sex ring, when people charged with looking after girls believed it to be normal and acceptable for 13 year olds to be sexually active.  The culture of sexual liberalism that Stonewall, inter alia, cultivates has real - and devastating - consequences for real people and society at large.  Lending it any credibility at all is another reason that the School is guilty of a grave error of judgement.

In this case, Stonewall were invited into a junior school.  Those promoting a 'liberal' sexual agenda are always trying to target children at an earlier age, whether directly or by re-educating their educators. It is shameful that a Catholic school was complicit in this.

Maria purissima - ora pro nobis.

A Diagnosis at Last!

People have long wondered what is wrong with me; but at last, thanks to Elizabeth Harrington (via Joseph Shaw), an accurate diagnosis has been made. I suffer from an ‘over-emphasis on Christ’s divinity and on human sinfulness.’

Well that's a relief.  Now it's official, I hope that I will be offered full support for my condition: communion rails, tolerance of kneeling and receiving on the tongue, regular confession made available - that kind of thing.

Note, in passing, the beauty of her thinking: how she can move straight from:

‘The “General Instruction of the Roman Missal” # 161 makes it quite clear that the choice of how to receive communion is the communicant’s. No minister may dictate whether communicants receive in the hand or on the tongue.’

to, in the very next sentence:

‘Receiving communion on the tongue when the majority receive in the hand disrupts the unity that uniformity of posture and practice at Communion symbolises and builds.’

This presents, in a microcosm, the strategy that has been used to destroy traditional Catholic practice:

• First, introduce an option that is different from traditional practice;
• Then educate/indoctrinate people (especially children: how many are taught of their right to receive on the tongue?);
• Make it difficult for the traditional option to be exercised (‘It is awkward for ministers to give communion on the tongue to people who are standing,’)
• Then marginalise and ridicule any who retain the traditional practice;
• Then move to make the new option not only normative but effectively compulsory.

It is curious how uniformity of practice is an irrelevant consideration when the new option is introduced, but becomes a guiding principle in trying finally to suppress the traditional practice.

***

In the meantime, I await with interest Ms Harrington's founding of the Church of Latter Day Cannibals, based on the following syllogism:

'We now understand that Christ is present in several special ways at Mass apart from in the consecrated elements, for example in the assembly which gathers.'

Christ commanded us to eat His flesh and drink His blood.

Therefore...

Sexting...

I keep seeing reports of teenagers indulging in sexting (here  and here for example), and the admonition of parents for failing to monitor their kids' electronic devices (as in the first article linked to).

Clearly this is a serious problem.

But the problem doesn't lie simply with the kids.  Consider this (from that same article): 

Jon Ebert, a psychologist who spoke to the Tennessean had wise words for kids today: “A lot of adolescents are still developing in their mind the ability to think ahead to the consequences. They’re in the moment, and they’re thinking of shock value or just being funny. What they’re not thinking about is the footprint they’re digitally leaving for themselves. They’re not thinking about what that footprint can do to them later on down the road or what effect that footprint can also have on others.”

Is it just me, or is that a profoundly troubling quotation (and editorial comment: 'wise words')? 

If the only advice we can offer to teenagers is to 'think about your digital footprint,' we are completely missing the point.

But I suppose it's the equivalent of 'make sure you use a condom.'

That is, we will not teach good behaviour (morality) for fear of seeming to preach - we will merely offer advice on how to avoid the consequences of immoral behaviour: advice which is doomed to failure, as immoral behaviour has profound and lasting consequences, even if the most obvious and immediate consequences are avoided, and also because all the protections (condoms, wiping computer memories...) are flawed and may fail too.

This seems to me to epitomise the moral bankruptcy that we are leaving as a legacy to the next generation, and it frightens me.

I would never give my kids such advice, any more than I check their mobile phones to make sure they are not taking pornographic pictures of themselves and others - but then I hope (and believe) that we have raised them in such a way as to make such advice, and such checks,  unnecessary.  I could, of course, be wrong, but even so, I think the noxious implications of such advice are such that I refuse to consider giving it anyway.

Sancta Maria purissima - ora pro nobis.

But why?...

This morning, unusually, we went to the main Parish Mass. I normally eschew it, as I find the music fairly unbearable, so we go to the earlier, music-light Mass.

However, Dominique was out on the razzle last night, as some hedonistic Ceilidh organised by the Methodists or something, and didn't get in till 11.00, so we thought we'd be kind and let her have a lie-in.  It also meant we could have a nice Mothering Day breakfast before Mass for Anna and her Mother.

However,...

Not only was the music dreadful (Freely, Freely - a waltz-time melody that really doesn't work being the low point, I think) but it was also a preparatory Mass for the First Communicants.

That meant that they formed the Offertory Procession, which is fair enough, I suppose (though they could have been rehearsed and given some sense of reverent behaviour to advantage!). But also they were invited to sit on benches in the sanctuary from then until communion.  Needless to say, that precluded their kneeling.  They stood for the Our Father and all held hands, the two in the middle holding the priest's hands.

Why?

Can anyone explain this to me?

I am genuinely mystified.  Our PP is very sound, preaches very good thoughtful sermons, is wise and, I think holy.  He is desperately aware that after their first Holy Communion day, few of these kids will come into the Church again...  Yet he seems stuck in some 70s warp that makes him think that this will help.

I just don't get it...

A New Evangelisation?

Just before leaving for Mass, I heard Fr Marcus Stock interviewed on the Sunday programme on Radio 4.  It was about the recently re-published guidelines on the appointment of senior staff and governors to positions in Catholic Schools.  The guidelines include some clarification of the requirement that they be practicing Catholics, pointing out that the term precludes those who are living in open and deliberate contradiction to the moral teaching of the Church (eg by co-habiting, living in a 'second marriage' whilst still married to their true spouse, and so on).

Fr Stock seemed to me to be rather vague and defensive.  All the media training I have done has always stressed the importance of identifying three or four key messages you wish to get across in an interview, and ensuring that you cover as many of them as the questions and time permit.

I struggle to identify Fr Stock's key messages.  The nearest I could get to them would be:

The timing of this coincides with the 'Same Sex Marriage' debate purely by coincidence;
The guidelines are deliberately non-specific in terms of application, because it is all very difficult in practice;
This is not a snoop's charter.

I think he could have gone in on a more positive tack, stressing the role of leader as a role model, talking more about the integrity of an individual who is teaching Catholic truth in these areas and so on.

I know that media interviews are not easy, and that the presenter on the Sunday programme had his own agenda, but that only underscores the need for proper training and preparation.

I mention all this, not to criticise Fr Stock, but to illustrate a much bigger concern.  I am continually reminded, in this Year of Faith, of the need for far more work to be done on the New Evangelisation: and specifically better training in apologetics.

Another example: the Catholic response to the proposed dismantling of marriage was very slow off the mark and very poor initially. It has got rather better, but even now I am troubled that we arguing against the changes on the grounds that they have no democratic mandate.  True though that be, it moves the debate into the wrong territory, and indeed, risks implicitly conceding that with a democratic mandate the government would have the authority and competence to re-define marriage; which is not, in fact, what we believe.

As a political argument, it is reasonable enough, and if the measure is thrown out by the Lords for that reason, I would be happy.  But of course, all it would take would be for a party (or more likely, all parties) to include it in their manifesto next time around, and we have nowhere to go.

No, the Church should argue from fundamental principles of Faith and Human Reason, such as Natural Law.  Yet we are ill-equipped to do that due to decades of inadequate formation, both of the laity and the clergy, and also a sapping of the will to do so from a desire to be more accommodating of, and comfortable with, broader society. The Second Vatican Council's throwing open of the windows of the Church was surely with the intention of letting more of the holiness of the Church out into society, not letting the corruption and errors of society enter the Church.

That is the challenge to which we have to rise.  The Catholic Voices project was well-intentioned, but perhaps shows the limitations of a quick-fix approach to these issues.  I am talking about something longer term: a serious re-evangelisation of ourselves, a training in apologetics such as the Catholic Evidence Guild used to offer, grounded in prayer and study.  Only in that way, I think, can we really hope to proclaim the Faith effectively and reverse the terrible trends we see around us both within the Church, in terms of lapsation and apostacy, and in civil society.

The harvest is great, but where are the labourers?  Let us pray, therefore, that the Lord of the harvest send labourers: and let us pray for discernment about our own role in this great work.

The Emetic

Ttony, over at The Muniment Room, has suggested that it would be a good idea to publish a regular corrective to some of the rubbish printed in The Tablet, and is using the working title: The Emetic.  He has posted an example of the kind of stuff that needed correction or comment in just one issue.

Due to the sheer volume of idiocy the Tablet can publish in a single issue, it would clearly need to be a team effort.

This seems a great idea to me, that could develop into a serious apostolate with many benefits; but , if it is to be taken at all seriously, it would need some thought and a lot of work.

Some of the questions that occur to me are:

• Should we set up a new blog, twitter feed etc dedicated to this important apostolate?
• Who should be on the team - and who decides - and by what criteria?
• Should we aim for consistency of style and approach (and if so what) or diversity ranging from satire to legal and theological dissection?
• Should we strive to fisk every dodgy article every week, or simply pick the more outrageous ones?
• Who would edit/review articles to ensure that they do in fact accurately express Catholic orthodoxy?
• Who would be our spiritual director?
• Is this, in fact, a good idea?

If anyone is interested in getting involved, or in answering any of those questions, or in suggesting further questions that we should address, please comment in the comms box here or at Ttony's place, or on Twitter.

Of course it's about homophobia...

One of the reasons that we are so ineffectual in our resistance to the destruction of marriage is that we are running scared.

It must never be thought that it is about homophobia, or that we discriminate in any way against homosexuals...  This fear, it seems to me, has eviscerated the Christian response to the assault on marriage, and left us looking irrational, hypocritical, and irresolute.

But the truth is that it is about homophobia, at least as that term is used by the gay rights lobby.  (It's not only about that, but I shall come back to that in another post).

When I say it is about homophobia, I do not mean an irrational fear or hatred of homosexual people (still less a rational one).  But I do mean a profound belief that the homosexual lifestyle is bad for them, for others and for society; that homosexuality is a disorder; that homosexual sex is a moral evil; that homosexual relationships are not morally equivalent to marriage, and so on.  Such beliefs, I expect, are sufficient for me to be branded homophobic.  But if I let the fear of that label prevent me from speaking the truth, then I really am scared.

I have a number of close relations who suffer from various degrees of autism.  They have done nothing to deserve this, and it would be wrong of anyone to blame them for it. I certainly love them no less because of this affliction.  However, it is an affliction, a disorder; to deny that is to do them no favours at all. Instead, we should seek to help them: a cure would be wonderful, but failing that, helping them to manage the disorder, and (of course) giving them love and support is the next best strategy.

However, occasionally the disorder may incline them to do things that are bad: bad for themselves and bad for others.  We do not say: 'Oh, that's OK: it's an alternative lifestyle,' as they bang their heads repeatedly on the floor, or attack their siblings, or refuse to eat.  We are sophisticated enough to recognise that these are bad behaviours, but they do not mean the person is a bad person, nor that we should withdraw our love and support.  But part of our loving response must be to help them to see that these behaviours are not good, and help them find ways to live that exclude these behaviours.

That is the challenge to Christians facing homosexuality: we are commanded firstly to love, but not in the shallow sense of condoning what is bad; rather in the sense that is motivated by the good of the other, and the good of all.  That good, we know, has been revealed by the God who sent His Son to live and to die for us, who sent His Holy Spirit to animate his Church, and who gave us Holy Matrimony as a sacred vocation, which we have a duty to defend and to pass on to our children in all its truth and beauty.

So we must oppose the destruction of marriage, confront the untruth that homosexuality is simply an alternative lifestyle that does nobody any harm, and tell the truth about these things clearly and without fear, but always in charity, seeking the good of the other.

And so far, we have been very poor at doing that.

What's going on at SMUC?

Imagine you are running an institution of Higher Education.  Imagine, further that it is a Catholic one (or as we'd probably say now, one with a Catholic ethos q.v.)

What would it take to make you send your security staff into the middle of a lecture, in order to remove the lecturer in front of a lecture theatre full of students?

For myself, I would need to be impelled by the sense that something very important was at stake, and further that there was extreme urgency attached to the removal of the lecturer.

Otherwise, it would make no sense at all.  Prudence, with regard to reputational risk alone, would make me wait till the end of the lecture if at all possible, even leaving aside any considerations of charity or the dignity of the individual (which, of course, one shouldn't in a Catholic Institution; or even in an Institution with a Catholic ethos [q.v.]).

Which all leads to the question: what's going on at St Mary's University College?

If you have not been aware of this, you may wish to look at EFPastor emeritus' and Fr Finigan's pieces on this.

The root of the dispute seems to be the proposed merger of the School of Theology, Philosophy and History with the School of Communication, Culture and Creative Arts to form a much larger  School of Arts and Humanities - and concerns about how appropriate that is for a Catholic Institution.

In fairness, I should note that such a trend of merging departments and faculties has swept English HEIs over the last decade or more: I am aware of many Universities which have done so (and predict a major Welsh University will follow suit with the arrival of a new Vice Chancellor this term...)

SMUC is also establishing a new Centre for the Study of Catholic Theology - so that's all right then.

However whether this particular re-structuring is wise or necessary is very much up for debate (though none is tolerated, it seems); and when the manner in which it is done involves such scandalous scenes, and leads to the resignation of distinguished figures such as Professor Eamon Duffy, and Dr Robin Gibbons, the longest serving theology lecturer, that does suggest a flawed process.

Having observed various organisational re-structurings in a long and varied career, I have noticed that while the 'business case' is often (though not always) the primary motivator, they are almost always seen as an opportunity to dislodge staff who are no longer valued, and who would otherwise be hard to shift.  (Sometimes that is done by voluntary severance schemes, sometimes by re-organising posts out of existence to make the staff redundant, sometimes by provoking them into doing or saying something that provides grounds for a disciplinary case against them, and sometimes by making life impossibly uncomfortable for them in a thousand small ways that would make constructive dismissal hard to claim...)

Is that a part of what is happening here?  Are people like Professor Duffy, Professor D'Costa, Dr Towey and Dr Gibbons not the kind of people wanted for the new Centre for the Study of Catholic Theology?  And if so, what does that tell us about it?

Of course, the Governors may say that some things are best settled privately and internally, not in the glare of ill-informed public comment like mine. That is a view with which I have some sympathy; unfortunately one rather undermines that approach by publicly frog-marching a lecturer away mid-lecture.

Bernie at the Olympics

Bernie is volunteering at the Olympics this week; not on public duty, but as a cleaner in the Olympic Village.  That is normally paid work, but she has been recruited to a scheme whereby her wages are donated to a charity in Uganda.

She is sleeping in the notorious workers' portakabins - nothing like the hell-holes portrayed by the press, more like youth hostel accommodation: shared, spartan, but fine.  Nonetheless, the news that that was where they were due to stay caused two of her co-volunteers to drop out before even seeing the place.

Two more dropped out after the first morning's work.  It is hard work, endlessly changing the beds, cleaning the rooms, and washing down the bathrooms of the athletes (which are rather more luxurious than her room, as you'd expect).

However, she is having a great time; we receive regular text updates, including that she has cleaned Sir Chris Hoy's room and made his bed; has met a very friendly Madagascan athlete who gave her a Madagascar badge, with which she is delighted, and most dramatically that she pulled the duvet off one bed, only to find a sleeping athlete in it!  Her text  continued: 'Awks! Never been so frightened in my life!'

So I gather she's having a fine time; and as she has her evenings free, is planning to enjoy some of the sights of London, including the Royal Academy summer exhibition.

She is trying to wangle some tickets for at least one Olympic event, so far unsuccessfully, but I'd put money on her getting to something before the week is out.

I'm pleased she's doing it - not least because our kids lead a very privileged life, and I think it is good for them to do some real hard work, and get some clue about how so many people have to work to make a living.  At her age, I used to work as a janitor and kitchen porter etc during my year off and vacations, and have long valued the people I met along the way and the whole experience of manual labour.

And there's also the aspect of having played some part in the London Olympics, as well as supporting a worthwhile charity.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - online

I have just discovered (thanks to a tweet by Diane Korzeniewski @TeDeumBlog) the online Catechism   of the Catholic Church.

It is fully searchable, the cross-references are hotlinks, the footnote numbers are links which bring up a pop-up box giving the reference...

All  in all this is a fantastic online resource, and should be bookmarked by every Catholic who has internet access.

London's New Catholic University...

I have been sent this flyer for an open meeting about the proposed new Catholic University in London, which I thought would be of interest.

I wish I'd known about it sooner, as am travelling to London that day for the Chartres Pilgrimage which departs early the following morning, but we have already booked train tickets for various trains (we are converging from different parts of the country) which will arrive in London too late for the meeting.

If anyone does go, I would be interested in any report of the meeting.

A Catholic University for London

I have just received the first newsletter from Benedictus, the project launched by Clare Hornsby and Franz Forrester to found a Catholic University in London.  The principles appeal to me and they seem to have some good people on board as academic advisors, to help establish a true liberal curriculum.

If you have a spare £5000 (or even £500, 000 which you decided not to send to Laurence, despite James' advice) you could donate it to them, and become one of Fifty Founding Friends. If you do, mention me, and maybe I could be honoured as a friend of a Friend...

Charlie's Essay

I just saw this masterpiece on the Family computer when I had my lunchbreak.

I have always known that boys are different from girls, and Charlie is certainly very different from his sisters.  None of them could have penned this amazing piece of prose...

How important was violence, amongst other factors, in bringing about the failure of Chartism? 12

Violence was an important factor in the failure of Chartism. The Newport Rising and violence at several Chartist protests did lead to condemnation by many and a fear of their motivations (REVOLUTION). However, other factors did play a more important role in their failure. In my opinion the most important reason was the division between the leaders. The fact that they couldn’t agree on a common goal or how to reach it led to a disorganised structure. This led to Chartism becoming a more localised movement, and it didn’t get to many industrial towns. This was in an age before mass communication, so different towns had different concerns. This meant that the overall movement lacked support.

Another factor in the failure of Chartism was the total lack of money. This was a major setback once the movement had started as it meant that the spreading of it was very difficult.  Grandma is behind me, coming into the room, I can hear her… puts a mug down. Picks it up. To the sink! Puts it down. Splashes water wanders away… breathes coughs. Shuffles about. Puts a mug away. Jingles all the mugs. ANNOYING. Shuts cupboard walkes towards sink. TEAPOT?emptyyies it, fills it empties it fills it empties it.WHAT? I think it is full now, she put it on boil. Now she gets things out cupboards. Farts. UGH. Tinkle water tinkle tinkle. Breathes LOTS. Sniff. OOoooohh now shes wiping down surfaces, empties the washing up bowl. LOUD WATER LOUD. Please to go granma? Stop all watering! Still wiping things.gkkkkkkkeeeeeeeeelllllllnnnnnbjv j    fj kd doihbdiohdx.fhib z bold? p whio put bold on? Turn bold off.

End

More on Catholic Voices

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oona Stannard steps down from CES

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

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

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

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

H/t Total Catholic