Lenten Alms - but not to CAFOD

On this the first Sunday of Lent we are yet again exhorted to 'give up so that we can give.' In particular so that we can give to CAFOD. Yet again, we won't be be giving to CAFOD, but rather to other charities that are more consistent in their Catholic Identity, such as Aid to the Church in Need.

In case anyone doesn't know of the reasons for concern with CAFOD, I summarise them here.

First, here is a blog post I posted 2 years ago:

CAFOD (the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development - supported by the Bishops of England and Wales) has a policy statement available from its www site which states clearly:

"It is important that people understand that abstinence and being faithful to one life-long partner in marriage, when both know they do not have HIV, are the surest ways to avoid infection through sexual activity," and further: "that CAFOD neither funds nor advocates the supply, distribution or promotion of condoms."

This is all, as CAFOD proudly proclaims, because "CAFOD seeks to exercise a role consistent with its Catholic character."

All well and good, the Catholic in the pew (who funds CAFOD on the basis of its being Catholic) might think.

But on the same site, we find another document (HIV Prevention From the Perspective of A Faith-Based Development Agency by Ann M. Smith, Jo Maher, Jim Simmons, Monica Dolan) which states, inter alia:

"abstinence can be used to mean:
Delaying the age of first sexual encounter. Evidence suggests that the abstinence aspect of ABC campaigns has been most successful among young people, for whom delaying the age of sexual debut was an important risk reduction strategy
Not having sex until the person is in a more stable relationship
Choosing to have sex only within a long-term committed relationship
Not having sex until marriage
As a mutually agreed and free choice (one of a number of possible options) by and between HIV discordant couples
As a preferred option for a specified period in a person’s life ."

Be Faithful "might mean fidelity to:
A single, mutually faithful partner, whether in marriage or in a long-term committed relationship
Serially monogamous relationships (provided a degree of stability exists within these relationships. What this means for individuals will vary, depending on current practices and alternative possibilities)
A strategy of reducing the number of partners
A strategy of reducing the instances of casual sex
A strategy of consistency in condom use if this is a person’s risk reduction option, given that condom failure is more often attributable to their inconsistent or incorrect use."

"The available evidence suggests that condom promotion has been particularly effective for identifiable groups at highest risk of HIV infection (e.g. sex workers) and who may have few if any other options for reducing risk.[snip] Thus an important component of this third strand of a nuanced ABC must be that C also stands for Choice. An imperative that becomes “Choose what you can change today; choose what you want to change for tomorrow” is informed by sound epidemiology and also compatible with the gradualist theological understanding referred to earlier. "

Is it me, or is there in fact a degree of promotion of condoms in the foregoing?

And is not 'abstinence' so proudly touted in the first policy document given a wholly new - and wholly unCatholic - meaning in the second?

I'll be choosing other Catholic charities for my alms this Lent...

Second, here is a summary of some of the other reasons for concern:

• For years, the faithful were funding (to the tune of some £60,000 a year) the life of Julian Filochowski as Director of CAFOD, who was in a 'committed' homosexual relationship with an 'ex'-priest , and homosexual activist, campaigning against Church teaching;
• Filochowski's successor was found, despite earning a significant salary (doubtless justified as living in London is so expensive) to be living rent-free in the house of a Labour MP - the expenses of which were being paid by the tax-payer;
• CAFOD's prayers are regularly very flakey, eg last year's Lent prayer: 'Spirit of God... Work through us so our vision becomes reality.' Contrast with 'Thy will be done...' which is what Christ taught us to say;
• CAFOD has recently appointed Damian McBride to run their media operation: best known for his outrageous smear campaigns against opposing politicians while working for Gordon Brown (which caused his untimely departure from No 10);
• CAFOD has a habit of cosying up to the Labour Party generally, not known as the greatest bastion of support for Catholic Social or Moral teaching.

So as I say, I think alms could better be sent elsewhere, notwithstanding the heroic work of many CAFOD workers: overall the organisation simply isn't trustworthy. There's something about taking money under false pretences, (ie pretending to be Catholic but then re-defining that to mean something other than what people in the pew believe it to mean),that I find truly repugnant.

The School Replies

I have just received a very civilised and sensible letter from the school in reply to the one I blogged about recently.

They thank me for raising my concerns, and assure me that they understand the issue, that the text had slipped by them without their realising the implications, and that they will correct it for next year.

Now if we could get that kind of response when we brought things to the attention of our bishops...

Lying - removing the taboo

Lying is perfectly normal, and all the evidence shows that nearly everyone does it. So it is inappropriate to make children feel guilty about this completely normal human behaviour, merely because of some fantasy Victorian code.

Of course, some people may choose not to lie, for religious, ethical and other reasons, and that's perfectly OK too - nobody is suggesting that lying be made compulsory. But for those who choose not to lie to try to impose their morality on others is completely unacceptable in a democratic secular society.

For the majority, lying is an enjoyable activity, and the repressions of a few fanatics should not make the rest of us feel guilty about it.

I'm thinking of organising Lying Education for primary schools, Lie with Pride marches, and a complete ban on any negative stories in the media about lying (given how many journalists lie, surely that is the ultimate hypocrisy.) We will present the public with a range of really tough choices and hard cases to help to educate them about this (not all of which need be true of course, as we lie with pride...)

Vaughan School latest

The Parents of the Vaughan School sent me this update (for which many thanks)... [NB They sent this yesterday during the day, so I am assuming item one happened - it was in the future tense when I received it].

· Yesterday evening, March 8th, Sir Adrian FitzGerald, former chairman of governors at Cardinal Vaughan, delivered a talk to invited parents on the background to the current dispute between the school and the Diocese, at 57 Tufton Street, SW1P 3QL from 7-8.30. Michael Gormally (the former Headmaster) and Patti Fordyce (former chairman of governors) was on hand, along with Sir Adrian, to answer questions. wine flowed. After the talk and the questions, those who wished to, walked to Westminster Cathedral and said some prayers outside for the future of the school, on the eve of the legal appeal. A version of of Sir Adrian's talk was first delivered on 25th January to the Order of Malta.

· Today, Ash Wednesday, March 9th at 10am. Appeal scheduled to be heard at the Law Courts. The case, brought by the five elected parent governors, is about the refusal of the Diocese of Westminster to appoint parents among the foundation governors at CVMS and the imposition of its own director of education on to the governing body. The judgment could be reserved. I will keep you informed of developments.

· We are collecting patrons at a phenominal rate, including some very distinguished Catholic journalists, authors and academics. This is the current list (subject to almost daily updates): Professor Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, Patti Fordyce, Professor Luke Gormally, Michael Gormally, Lord Grantley, Paul Johnson, Edward Leigh MP, Lord Lexden, Charles Moore, Cristina Odone, Professor Thomas Pink, Piers Paul Read, Dr John Martin Robinson, Professor Mark Watson-Gandy. For short biographies of our patrons, please go here: https://sites.google.com/site/vaughanparentsactiongroup/patrons

· Through our correspondence with our patrons and our leafletting activities at parishes and primary schools, we are becoming aware of just how much support our campaign has among Catholics generally, not just those with connections with the school. We are also aware that there are a great many Catholic priests among our supporters (though we are being careful to protect their identities). We are hugely encouraged by this and we are all absolutely determined that, whichever way the appeal goes, the campaign to preserve the Vaughan's distinctive Catholic ethos, its London-wide intake, and its academic, musical and sporting excellence, will be pursued relentlessly and by every possible means.

--

Please remember the Vaughan School in your prayers today and throughout Lent.

A Letter to School

As there is no Catholic school nearby (in fact the nearest good Catholic school is hundreds of miles away...), Bernie, Charlie and Dominique go to the local secondary school. It is generally very good, but every now and then something arises...

Dear Mr X

I was distressed to see, on reading one of Dominique's Year 7 RE handouts, (Unit 3 - Jesus) that it included the following:

‘He (Jesus) lived with Mary and Joseph and his brothers and sisters in Nazareth until he was baptised by John the Baptist.’

This is a highly contested, Protestant, point of view, and from a Roman Catholic position has been formally condemned as heresy as early as the First Lateran Council in 649.

The English translation of ἀδελφός ‘adelphos’ as ‘[blood] brother’ in the Gospels sits uncomfortably with its application to Lot and Abraham, and to Laban and Jacob in Genesis. Likewise, Jesus’s assigning Mary to John from the Cross clearly implies there were no blood relatives to take his place as her son.

In fact the semitic languages had no variant words for cousins and nephews, and the same word was used for all (cf Genesis examples cited), then translated into Greek as ‘adelphos’ leading to this ambiguity.

The Protestant insistence on a literal meaning of ‘[blood] brother’ for this word in the Gospels (though not in Genesis...) is a deliberate rejection of the Catholic (and Orthodox) teaching on the perpetual virginity of Mary - and is therefore also a minority view within Christianity.

I think it unfortunate (to say the least) that this should be presented as a simple fact, in passing, in a text that is not avowedly Protestant. It would be far more helpful, and more honest, to explore the divergence of interpretations - or simply to omit the contentious statement all together. I really dislike having to tell my children that what they have been taught in school is wrong...

I hope that the RE Department will look into this and decide an appropriate solution - and I would be interested to hear your response.

Yours sincerely

Ben Trovato

Jews and Christians

On the Today programme this morning, I heard the tail end of a discussion about relationships between Catholics and Jews. I do not know who the Catholic representative was, but he made the point that both Pope John Paul 2nd and our current Holy Father had apologised for Catholic mistreatment of Jews through history, based on a wrong interpretation of the words in St Matthew’s Gospel: ‘His blood be upon us and our children’s children.’

The female rabbi concluded the discussion by saying ‘Every time this is mentioned there should be an apology.’

That struck me a slightly strange.

I make no excuses for the persecution of Jews through the centuries, but it did strike me that what the Rabbi was saying was that present day Catholics are accountable for the sins of their fore fathers. It’s a tenable position. But the context within which she was saying it, that present-day Jews could not be held accountable for the sins of their fore-fathers struck me as slightly self-contradictory.

Adopt a priestess

Larry over at Acts of the Apostasy has a great project: you adopt a priestess and commit to pray for her conversion regularly. God will surely answer these prayers - in His own time and His own way as ever.

They're selling like hot cakes so go on over before he's sold out!