'Churches Together'? The Church Apart

Yesterday I went to a 'Churches Together' forum meeting, to discuss Issues in Human Embryology. There were three main speakers: a Catholic (from the excellent Linacre Centre), and two non-conformists.

The difference was stark. The non-conformist who had chaired a working group on the issues for the Methodists, URC and Baptists, was extraordinarily incoherent, morally and intellectually. A sample of her line of argument (though I flatter, calling it an argument...): 'We accord human status to the human embryo, but just as we treat children differently from adults. so it is appropriate to treat embryos differently from foetuses and from born children. So it is OK to experiment on them and kill them.' The other chap was not much better, equivocating and 'on the other handing' a lot.

The Catholic, Stephen Barrie, was by contrast intellectually and morally coherent, as well as compassionate and appropriately humourous. He laid out the ethical principles underlying the Catholic teaching on these issues, and explained them clearly and patiently. The contrast was extraordinary - and made me proud to be Catholic.

What the audience made of it was hard to read, as there was no open discussion, only written questions submitted and screened (mine weren't put to the panel...).

But for me, the difference was between well-intentioned people with no real coherence, and an individual teaching as one who had authority: the authority of the One True Church.

Why You Love the Tablet: Poll Results

Finally, the long-awaited results of my market research exercise on behalf of the Tablet.

90 people voted (that's probably more than my readership, so well done to those of you who followed the old precept: vote early and vote often!)

1 person voted (I hope tongue firmly in cheek) for the attack of Fr Tim. At least on Tabletista voted, possibly several times, unless she got her friends to vote too, as the implausible suggestion that it covers the whole range of Catholic opinion received a handful of votes.

But the winner was 'I prefer my dissent to have a pseudo-intellectual air'; this is bad news for the Tablet, as it doesn't suggest any change: just keep on doing what you do best. Unfortunately, while that's the winning idea, it hasn't served you too well...























I was wondering if anyone might suggest my questions were biased or prejudicial: and indeed in the comments some other suggestions were made (see below) but they suggest I was on the right lines:

'I find it's particularly good as a lining for a cat litter tray.'

'My cats prefer to cxxp on the New Statesman or the Guardian, but they are not dissimilar to the Tablet.'

'I love the fact that I can judge the orthodoxy of a priest by asking about the tablet. If he loves the tablet, his theology will be more liberal than I can stomach. If he has reservations or dislikes it, then I can safely listen to his homilies....'

Another poll will be along in a while, when I can think of something equally intellectually challenging.

After all, I wouldn't want to fall into the ways of journalism (see previous post!)

The Distorting Mirror

I've just been on a media training course: great fun, culminating in a day in a TV studio being interviewed several times and watching the results.

One of the things that struck me was how dreadful a profession journalism is. The journalists and broadcasters running the course were drumming home two things: one is that if it isn't 'a good story', it isn't news; the other is that it must be told simply as people will not attend to anything for very long.

By 'a good story', essentially they mean it has to be conflict-ridden; and by 'simply' they mean in short words, short sentences, and a short time overall.

All of which I knew already, but hearing it in such stark terms - and working with people whose professional skill is to package information in that way and discard information which doesn't fit that model - made me reflect again on what a distorting mirror our media are.

This distortion, in favour of over-dramatising and over-simplifying, is then amplified by the media culture; it struck me anew that a particular type of person is drawn to work in the media (or possibly that working in the media results in one becoming a particular type of person); and that is typified by the BBC culture,w here they all associate so much with themselves and their types that they genuinely do not see the bias that they bring to everything: they are genuinely outraged when any one suggests that they have any bias: yet to the outside observer with a different set of prejudices, their bias is obvious, persistent and consistent.

As a father, one of the things i have worked hard at is protecting my kids from being damaged by the prevalent culture: hence counter-cultural father. A key part of my strategy has been to minimise their reliance on the mainstream media as sources of information and comment. We have no TV, we don't have a paper every day, we listen to the radio news infrequently; we do talk about news and current affairs (a bit) at home and discuss it from our perspective. We watch films rather than TV (among other reasons, films demand a longer attention span: TV's crazy pace is one of its stuctural problems!), and choose them with some care, watch them together and talk about the implications of the stories, including the moral implications and the attitudes underlying the characters and their decision.

Above all we encourage the kids to think about things themselves, to challenge received ideas and opinions, and to do so from within a framework of beliefs, opinions and attitudes which we set, rather than those who think the key attributes of reality are conflict and simplicity (and a BBC worldview)...

Our New Charismatic Friends

A while ago, and somewhat against my prejudices, we went to a Charismatic day run by a group called something like 'For Christ's Sake.'

I have always had some reservations about the Charismatic Renewal. I like their ardour, but find their approach to liturgy hard to take; further some Charismatic Catholics seem more loyal to the Charismatic Renewal than to the Church.

In many ways, the day reflected my prejudices: lots of enthusiasm and positive thinking, and a Mass I found very difficult: I incline more to Latin, Gregorian Chant, and reverence than to hand waving, bass'n'drums and very active participation in that Charismatic interpretation of those words. And as for their taste in music...

However, we liked the couple running it, and yesterday they came round for the day, with their three boys.

We enjoyed the day enormously. Their boys, younger than ours, knew how to play (not something we always find in visiting children); they settled in well with our four, enjoyed playing in the garden and going for a walk, ate their food in a civilised fashion and so on. Immediately we were inclined to recognise their parents as doing a lot right.

Meanwhile we were chatting with their parents and were hugely impressed: people of real faith, orthodox and committed to evangelisation. Delightful people without that 'holy' veneer that can be so off-putting, but a more profound and reflective faith. The father works as a jobbing builder, but not a great deal at present: there is so much to do for their community. So really, they live by charity, relying on Providence to run their missionary work and support their family. They strike me as more counter-cultural than us, which I particularly like.

Which leaves us with a real dilemma: we are keen to support them and the work they are doing, but I can't see us going to any more of their Masses; nor do I yet feel we know them well enough to explain why without risking hurting them and being misunderstood....

Lightning Trip to Scotland (part two)

Then we drove into town and quickly realised parking was going to be impossible, so drove back out and parked by the beach.

A leisurely play in the park, a walk on the beach, and an exploration of the Cathedral were all conducted in high humour (Bernie's camera in overdrive) despite the raging gale blowing in from Siberia (normal for the East Coast, in my experience). However by now we were beginning to get cold: not least Bernie in a pair of borrowed shorts of Ant's, as she'd melted a creme egg in the pocket of her only trousers...

So we decided to go into town and buy a couple of things and warm up in the shops, then went to the Castle, only to find dogs were not allowed. So walked all the way back to the car to leave Goldie there for a while (open windows, shade, freezing breeze: don't worry!), and returned to town for a cafe lunch and a trip around the castle.

The castle is fantastic! Of particular interest is the mine and counter-mine: in 1546 the Earl of Arran was laying seige to the castle and decided the best way to attack it was to dig under the walls, thus causing them to collapse. The defenders saw what was happening, and sank their own holes to intercept the enemy's attempts to undermine them: and managed to do so. You can now go down the counter-mine and see where it joined the attacking mine.

We then returned to the car, and played on the beach with Goldie till Anna and Ant finished their Open Day. They had had a great day too, so we returned home tired but happy - stopping for fantastic fish and chips en route.

Lightning Trip to Scotland (part one)

Ant had an invitation to St Andrew's University for an Open Day,as she has the offer of a place there. She was keen to have another look round, and Anna and I had never been to St Andrew's so we were both keen too. Only one of us could accompany her, so we decided the other (and I of course was 'the other') would look round the town independently: with the rest fo the kids of course.

So we drove up on Tuesday, starting bright and early (after a hectic rush of packing etc as we'd been out walking allday Monday and hadn't got around to it on getting home).


We stopped at Linlithgow Palace on the way, and were fascinated by this large and complex site and its history.

Then arrived at a campsite above the beach at St Andrews and pitched our tent. That is a whole family activity and must make a good spectator sport, but luckily nobody was watching. A wonderful pasta supper followed by a walk on the beach, preceded an early bed. But not much sleep. It was bitterly cold, people in the next tent had both a crying baby and a TV or radio without which they didn't seem able to live, and so the long night passed. Dominique and Charlie woke fully at 5.30 - and so did the rest of us.

However, we had a lovely day in St Andrews. Ant and Anna hurried off across the beach into town for their Open Day, while we struck camp.

Chartres Pilgrimage

I made a passing reference to 'going to Chartres' in a recent post. I was referring, of course, to the annual Pentecost pilgrimage from Notre Dame de Paris to Notre Dame de Chartres: a three day walk covering some 75 miles, in the company of thousands of (mainly) young Catholics passionate about their Faith, with Mass in the Extraordinary Form (Traditional, Latin) throughout.

Ant and Bernie have done it numerous times, Charlie once, and me twice; this year it will be me, Charlie and Dominique.

As anyone who does it will attest: at the time it is gruelling and you wonder why on earth... and from the moment it ends you can't wait to get back!

Regina Caeli: Ora pro nobis Deum, Alleluia.