Church History in Four Minutes. That's just over eight years per second...

Harvest time has come again and our Michaelmas Day meal loomed. It is one of those feast days which we make the effort to celebrate in style so down to the Butchers we trundled to buy a duck.

This year it was all down to me, usually James like to do the roast as it is a manly way to cook but he was too busy at work to take time off. I was a little apprehensive but just dived on in. In the morning Leona and I made a Damson pie with some of the remaining damson's home grown by Lizzy's parents, Leona pretty much made it all, though naturally I helped with de-pipping the damsons.

It was with surprise that James entered the family home after work to find not only no catastrophes but the smell of non burnt food!

Luckily it all went well and my parents did not even have to wait to eat! Most unusual :o)

Where would a feast day be without a bit of merrimaking after the meal.

A fab time was had by all.

I'm too religious for your PC. Too religious for your PC. The way I'm disco dancing...

It seems that Kate's computer filtering software considers us to be something of a risk and not something to be viewed by the feint of heart on account of our religious content.

Dangeresque!

Then, trying to access some of the blogs linked to mine, the computer came up with an 'access denied- Religion' message for five of the blogs I enjoy!

These were:

Catholic and loving it
Curt Jester
Hermeneutic of continuity
What does the prayer really say
Inside Catholic

[link]

Wow. I'm honoured to be listed among such exalted company. If I keep drinking my milk then maybe one day I'll be as famous as Thomas Peters! Thomas Peters? Who is he?

Exactly.

Fr Ray Blake wants to know why western governments don't do something about the terrible human rights abuses in China.

I don't want to underplay the seriousness of the situation, but which is easier...

A) For heavily indebted western governments with a need for cheap electronics to attempt to push around the worlds largest superpower over which they have no authority or control and which could very well turn nasty and lead to world war three?

or...

B) For Archbishop Vincent Nichols to do something about Terry Prendergast, the director of Catholic Marriage Care who said that Marriage makes no difference to Children?

Because if the Archbishop of Westminster himself cannot do anything about a member of an organisation of which he is the president, it's a bit rich for anybody in the Church to expect western governments to do something about a nation of more than a billion people on the other side of the world.

In other words: When you turn a blind eye to Terry Prendergast, we as a Church lose the ability to criticise anybody for blind eye turning.

Nice one.

Unfortunately Ella and I were unable to get to Middlesbrough for the visit of the relics of St Therese of Lisieux and had to go to Leeds instead.

We have, however, been looking at the photos of the visit to Middlesbrough which can be found on the official Flickr stream of the arrival and evening Mass and the departure. There are also three galleries from the Diocese of day one, day two and some photos from Fr Paul Farrer.

I know it's a bit out of character for me to say something nice but I just wanted to say that it looks like it was a beautiful occasion for the Diocese and well done to all involved.

Normal service will be resumed shortly...

A few short months ago in July I did a blog entry entitled The Last Crusade in which I highlighted the fact that Terence Drainey, Bishop of Middlesbrough was using earthenware communion vessels despite the fact that he had himself pointed out to another priest the need to acquire some new chalices "in order to enhance and add even more dignity to the liturgy."

I'm pleased to say that not long after that blog entry Bishop Drainey did indeed acquire some proper chalices and very nice they are too...

We will never know of course, whether it was my blogging that lead Bishop Drainey to acquire the new chalices. The official position is to scoff at the thought that any Bishop might care what is said on some blog (you have to sort of spit as you say the word 'blog' to get the full effect) but then with at least three different computers visiting regularly from our Diocesan Curial Offices (not to mention their friends in York) who knows... Maybe Bishop Drainey heard the Holy Father's advice to "confront the challenges which arise from the new digital culture" or maybe he just got around to something he intended to do all along.

I don't really mind. The important thing is that the beauty of our Eucharistic celebrations has been improved and the dignity of the sacrament affirmed. I'm happy.

So is that the end of it?

No actually. Because aside from the materials used to make the sacred vessles used at communion, Redemptionis Sacramentum contains another arguably more important statement...

The Communion-plate for the Communion of the faithful should be retained, so as to avoid the danger of the sacred host or some fragment of it falling.

Redemptionis Sacramentum 93

The Communion-plate is held under the host (usually by an altar server) so as to collect any crumbs or fragments that may fall from it. Here's a picture of the Pope using one...

And here is a picture of Bishop Drainey not using one...

I don't think it's fair to be too hard on the Bishop, the use of the communion plate has been all but abolished across England and Wales and maybe he just doesn't know (Bishops have a lot on their minds, I'm sure).

I do think it's a worthy and noble thing to campaign for. The teaching of Redemptionis Sacramentum and the the clear example of Pope Benedict are clear: "The Communion-plate for the Communion of the faithful should be retained."

We like this...

I've already blogged the poem so this year you can have a documentary...

We're forever hearing about the priest crisis. I've even heard the English Bishop's talk about it... but it will be a cold day in hell before any of them has the guts to talk about the real crisis.

To illustrate my point, I have taken this photo from the recent pastoral skills course in our Middlesbrough Diocese and coloured it in...

Where are all the men?

Oh! There they are...

Of course, when James the fundamentalist crazy blogger makes snide remarks about Church politics everybody says how it's uncharitable and we should all only say nice things about everything. But when the Bishop of Middlesbrough does it...

Most of us want to be boss, top-dog. We like to dominate if at all possible. And we know that in reality, ‘Who’s the King of the Castle’ isn’t a children’s game at all. It is played out in our lives pretty well everyday. We see it in politics, international, national and local politics, and even family politics. Dare I say if you look very carefully you might even recognise it in Church politics?

[link]

That's different...

Just what I always wanted...

I've always quite liked Stephen Fry and thought him an intelligent, affable bloke. This however is totally, outrageously, unacceptable.

Save yourself a bit of time and skip to 5 minutes...

"There's been a history, let's face it, in Poland, of a right wing Catholicism which has been deeply disturbing for those of us who know a little history and remember which side of the border Auschwitz was on..."

Forget the anti-Catholic bit for a moment. Pretend he "just" said "remember which side of the border Auschwitz was on" and it's still completely out of order. The anti-Catholic bit is just a spoonful of sugar that helps the medicine go down.

"That is beyond outrageous. It slanderously suggests that Auschwitz was run by Polish Catholics, not by German Nazis. “A little history” is right. Just how very little history Fry knows is demonstrated by that crassly ignorant statement. Auschwitz was on Polish soil, ergo it was a Polish institution? As for which side of the border Auschwitz was on, it was actually in Upper Silesia which had been annexed to Germany in 1939. It might, of course, be argued that the Poles built Auschwitz – if slave labour counts.

The first prisoners in Auschwitz were Polish intellectuals and members of the resistance. Altogether, 150,000 Catholic Poles were murdered in Auschwitz, including Saint Maximilian Kolbe. Between two and three million Catholic Poles were killed in the Second World War. Polish pilots fought in the RAF in the Battle of Britain.

[link]

Stephen Fry is gay man and there's been a bit of history, let's face it, in gay men, of liking other men which has been deeply disturbing for those of us who know a little history and remember what gender Hitler was...

I've just received the latest issue of Faith magazine which contains a book review that I wrote. The editor clearly felt that my name on the front cover would, with it's intrinsic awesomeness, help to sell more copies.

I know, I know. I'm not that awesome. I mean, it's not like wikio pt me in their "top blog" rankings ahead of some fellow by the name of John Smeaton. Oh wait, they did?

Okay... but it's not like Luke Coppen, the editor of the Catholic Herald mentions me on Twitter... Oh wait.

Worry not! I'm a married man, feet back on the ground in 3... 2... 1...

If you can keep your head, while little girls are moving theirs and making it hard for you...

I did that!

I hold a degree in physics and can ride a unicycle and I can honestly say that plaiting a little girls hair is the single most challenging thing I have ever had to do.

You know that thing in Karate Kid where Mr Miyagi is trying to catch a fly with chopsticks because "Man who catch fly with chopstick accomplish anything"?

Well, I think the same applies here.

As it is the weekend, I hope you will take a moment to enjoy this absolutely fantastic Time Travelling Game!

I am very grateful to James Hannam for sending me a free copy of his book to review. God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science takes a comprehensive but accessible look at the way modern scientific thinking developed from the firm foundations of the Medieval world.

It is the perfect antidote to all the Dan Brown nonsense about secret underground scientists building tunnels under Rome to evade the nasty Pope's and then spending all their time creating renaissance art for the sole purpose of sending secret messages. It's a book ordinary people can understand but it's also well researched and very thoroughly footnoted so when James Hannam writes something, you can be sure there'll be a reference to back it up.

One of the earlier chapters I enjoyed was the mathematical pope which tells the story of Pope Sylvester II who for most of his life was known as Gebert of Aurillac. This chapter covers the medieval view of the universe, here's an exerpt...

Gerbert's picture of the universe differed from ours in other ways too. He did believe that the earth was both stationary and the centre of the universe. According to him, while the earth stood still , the whole of the heavens revolved anti-clockwise once a day. Each plant was believed to be embedded in the rim of a great spere which rotated clockwise, with periods randing from one month for the moon to 30 days for Saturn. This meant that the planets were orbiting the earth and a speed determined by the rotation of their respective celestial spheres.

Of course, we now know that Gerbert was wrong, but his belief was perfectly rational. For a start, it's self-evident to us all that the earth is not moving. When you are on a merry-go-round, turning at high speed, you have to hang on tight. Gerbert knew how large the earth was, and he knew that if it were rotating every 24 hours then he would be travelling on it's surface at close to 1,000 miles an hour. He should hardly be able to hang on! Or at the very least, he would feel the winds rushing past him as the atmosphere struggled to keep up with the spinning earth. Likewise, if he threw something into the air, he should note that it fell well behind where it started, as the earth would have moved on by the time it landed. Anyway, this is what he learned at school. All his textbooks and his teachers agreed the the earth neither moved nor revolved. True enough, the Bible said this too but it was in agreement with all the pagan Greek sages.

Besides, it was not always to be taken completely literally. The Bible also strongly implied that the earth was flat, for instance with reference to it having 'edges' in Job 38:13. Yed medieval people sided with the astronomers on this matter. Where the Bible seemed to conflict with good sense or reason, medieval thinkers were happy to interpret it figuratively rather than literally.

Before we criticise Gerbert and his companions for their foolish adherance to ancient Greek and Hebrew authority, consider this. If someone asked you today to demonstrate that the earth orbits the sun, you almost certainly could not do it. You could show them every book and ask every expert, but you could not provide them with direct evidence withot a telescope, a lot of time and a lot of mathematics. Gerbert lacked the telescope and the maths, so we cannot blame him for believing his books when they so clearly echoed common sense. The idea that the earth moves was absurd, and it would take a great deal of careful thought before people realised it was even possible.

This is the reoccuring theme - the Medieval's may have had the facts wrong, but they were not thinking outside the bounds of reason and common sense. They simply had a long way to go until the facts got sorted out. It has £20 written on the back of it but you can have it from Amazon for £12 which is a good price for a decent sized hardback book with decent writing inside it.

While you wait for it to come you might like to read James Hannam's blog.

Very good to see the Extraordinary Form being celebrated once more in York where Fr Stephen Maughan has completed his Jedi training and will be saying an Mass in the Extraordinary Form every Sunday at 6:30pm at English Martyrs.

From the Latin Mass Society blog...

About 40 attended yesterday, which was quite good since it is nine months since the last Latin Mass in York. Interestingly, many of the congregation were people that I had not seen before. In the other hand, some who were regulars last year were not there. Hopefully, the attendence will build up so that there are enough for this Mass to continue indefinitely.

[link]

There is the distinct possibility that we might get along to one of these. I've heard all sorts of terrible things about traditionalists...

Does anybody know if they are very child friendly?

The Oxford English Dictionary defines "quango" as follows...

quango

noun (pl. quangos) Brit., chiefly derogatory a semi-public administrative body with financial support from and senior appointments made by the government.

— ORIGIN acronym from quasi (or quasi-autonomous) non-governmental organization.

[link]

There is something distinctly dishonest about quangos. The government love them because they allow them to wield power and authority without messy little details like responsibility.

They are funded (at least in part) by the government which places them at least partly under government control and when it suits them they tend to carry the weight governmental authority, although when it suits them they are distanced. So one week Gordon Brown will be proudly bragging about the billions he has sunk in to youth development projects and the next week he will be saying that something wasn't his fault, it was those pesky folk at the independent commision for something-or-other.

I bring this up because while everybody has been all distracted with the visit of the Relics of St Therese, I've noticed the discreet birth of a quango for Catholic youth work in England and Wales.

The official Catholic Bishop's Conference agency for Catholic youth work was Catholic Youth Services until it was quietly dismantled under mysterious circumstances last november. At that time we were told that "research is to be carried out to determine the current provision for youth ministry within the Dioceses, and directions for further development" and that "This work will be carried out by an Interim Youth Ministry Co-ordinator under the supervision of Bishop Kieran Conry, within the Bishops' Department of Evangelisation and Catechesis"

So for the time being, the Catholic Bishop's Conference of England and Wales has no official agency for Youth Work.

Sort of...

This is where the quasi part kicks in...

The Catholic Youth Ministry Federation. Very official sounding don't you think? Read the blurb on their website...

The Catholic Youth Ministry Federation (CYMFed) exists to help shape and support Catholic Youth Ministry in England and Wales.

CYMFed is made up of 32 Dioceses and Catholic organisations working with young people in England and Wales. Within this federation there are numerous staff and volunteers - the ‘on the ground’ practitioners of youth ministry - who work with over 30,000 young people each year.

CYMFed is recognised and supported by the Catholic Bishop's Conference of England and Wales.

I always thought that the Bishops Conference is the Dioceses of England and Wales coming together but, oh, silly me. Apparently when individual Dioceses pay people and those people come together "recognised and supported by the Catholic Bishop's Conference of England and Wales" that's something different and it's definitely not an agency of the Bishop's Conference.

A very cosy arrangement...

Elsewhere the CYMFed website reads...

CYMFed’s organisation is run by the principle officers of each diocese and organisation, who meet three times a year, and the Board which meets regularly. Bringing together the ‘on the ground’ practitioners of those working with young people in a Catholic context, CYMFed is the single most experienced and qualified body in the UK to hold, protect and further the vision of youth ministry.

So the usual suspects wander around playing the "supported by the Bishop's Conference card" which they will use to great effect to get all the sisters and brothers to come along and then when they get carried away and do something outrageous and people write to the Vatican the Bishop's Conference can say "Not me guvner".

Like I said, there's something distinctly dishonest about a quango. It's not an agency of the Bishop's conference but it sort of is, depending on what is convenient at the time.

They are organising a conference, sorry, a "National Congress for Catholics working with young people" this February. I wouldn't want you to think it's got anything to do with the Bishop's Conference of course, but Archbishop Vincent Nichols will be there.

What could possibly be wrong with something Archbishop Vincent Nichols supports?

I know Cardinal Schönborn isn't exactly squeaky clean and Austria is a bloody mess but this is very good...

Q: What are the causes of the vocations crisis?

My conviction is that vocations do exist—for female religious, priests, men and women—and that they are numerous. But often, they get nowhere because of the climate of indecision in our society. Who gets married nowadays, except the most fanatical Catholics? This indecision plays an important role for the lack, not of vocations, but of fulfilled vocations.

In many families, there is no joy that a son might be a priest or a daughter a nun. So, people are called, but who hears?

We also feel the effects of the crisis [of vocations] in recent decades. The vagueness of the formation and the identity of the priest have meant that many have drawn back. Meanwhile, during these last thirty years, in Europe or in America, there has been a widespread phenomenon: young people are moving towards the faith of the Church: a few seminaries and new communities are full of vocations.

Some colleagues—a bit liberal [un peu soixante-huitardes]—conclude that "These young people seek security, they are cautious, they dare not confront the world, etc.. " without seeing that it was their own secularized way of life, their flat and purely horizontal theology which had no attraction for youth! That is why I propose that in our chapters-general, our diocesan meetings, we begin to ask ourselves: "Where are vocations going to come from? Why?" Be honest enough to look closely. The answer will be easy, but we must dare to confront the reality.

[link]

Many Catholic Diocese have a Vocations Officer who goes around giving talks about what it's like being a priest in the hope of encouraging people to take up their vocations.

A time is rapidly aproaching when the Dicoeses of England and Wales will have to seriously consider doing the same for Marriage.

Joe at Catholic Commentary has this to say about the new Catholic Youth Ministry Federation...

Yes, there is a nice acronym. Yes, there appears to be a launch congress. But no, there is no sign of a patron saint, no sign of what are characteristic features of the new movements, Eucharistic and Marian devotion. Look at their six objectives - and, since it doesn't seem to have properly formed or launched yet, the claim to be "the single most experienced and qualified body in the UK to hold, protect and further the vision of youth ministry" seems fanciful.

[link]

No sign of a patron saint.

No sign of Eucharistic and Marian devotion.

Not properly launched yet, but have already found the cash to fly speakers over from the United States to a "congress" to which they have also managed to attract Archbishop Vincent Nichols.

Where is the money coming from?

Who is pulling the strings?

I'm really struggling with this one...

UNIVERSITY OF THE FLIPPIN' OBVIOUS
Bachelor of Commonsense Honours Degree Examination

Rocket Science Level I (Faculty of drawing conclusions from empirical observation)
Sunday 11 October 2009

Answer question 1. (Three hours allowed)

1. Which of the following will be more effective in reviving Catholic faith and devotion in Britain today?

a) Arranging meetings to discuss the environment, climate change, the credit crunch, inclusion, exclusion, holism, and equality, discerning how best to downsize the Church's activity by closing parishes, and identifying the possibilities for lay ministry in priestless Churches, with people breaking into small groups to discuss their feelings about these important issues.

b) Vigorously promoting the traditional devotional life and magisterial teaching of the Church, and giving high profile support to all events that encourage and nurture faith in the Blessed Sacrament, and devotion to Our Lady and the Saints - not excluding devotion to relics of the same. (Without actually needing to break up into small groups.)

The trouble is that while the answer seems obvious at first, I can't help wondering if a few INSPIRATIONAL STUDY DAYS wouldn't top them both!

Credit: Fr Tim Finigan

Déjà Vu?

I've already blogged about Cronotron, a wonderful time travelling puzzle game. If you haven't had a play, nows the time.

If you win, then you get one of these...

I win!

We went to Hull Fair this evening. Hull Fair is something of an institution in these parts, it comes every year and is one of the largest travelling fairs in Europe. It is not like a theme park at all and really has to be experienced to be understood. As a child I lived near enough to smell the fair from my house, all candy floss and hot dog stands. For me, it's like being twelve again and memories come flooding back of wandering around the fair with no money, simply to enjoy the spectacle.

Having been to the fair this evening, now seems as good a time as any to tell you about the short talk I gave to the youth group last week on the subject of Hull Fair. It was a smal group and therefore quite an interactive talk, I asked them what their favourite thing about Hull Fair is an they all said something called "The Bomber".

It was one of those moments when you realise you've become a grown up. I remember being of an age when conversations were had on the school bus about various rides and which was the best. There was a time when I would have known what "The Bomber" was but I had to ask. Apparently it lifts you up and goes around and then swoops you down. I know now... because we've just been to the fair and I've seen it.

Anyway... the point is that everybody talks about the big rides at Hull fair but there are smaller things as well. Can anybody think of any? "Helter Skelter", "Hook a Duck"... nope, those things are still quite big. Think smaller. Eventually somebody got it.. "Toffee Apples". Then they all got it: "Candy Floss", "Brandy Snap", "Cinder Toffee" etc...

"..and Pomegranates"... Pomegranates? Yeah.. You can buy pomegranates at Hull Fair. I don't understand it either, but there you are...

Getting back to my point, I pointed out that when you talk about Hull Fair many people (especially younger ones) think of the big rides and attractions, but there are smaller things at Hull Fair which are important too. I asked them to try to imagine Hull Fair without any toffee apples, jumbo hot dogs and candy floss. They all agreed that such a thing was unspeakable. They all agreed that the little things are essential to making Hull Fair great.

Then I asked them to consider the Church, which we often think of as consisting of Priests and Bishops, Great Saints, Cathedrals and Bascilicas. Even our small parish church is quite a big thing if you compare it to, say, a twelve year old. Yet the little things in the Church which, I told them, includes me as well as them, are very important. So important that the Church without them would be like Hull Fair without cinder toffee.

So all of us, however small we might be, have an important part to play.

Which leads us quite nicely on to St Therese, the little flower...

St Therese, the toffee apple.

I'm finding it hard to believe that nobody at the National Secular Society could see the irony here...

In countries where women are little more than chattels, men will not always consent to the use of condoms, whereas pharmaceutical contraceptives give women control over their bodies.

link

Are they serious?

One of the patrons of our diocese is a Bishop whose faithfulness to the Holy See made him so unpopular that he was evicted from his own diocese and had to go to Rome and get the Pope to put him back in charge.

St Wilfrid had some pretty strong words for any local clergy who feel they can do things any way they like...

"But as for you and your companions, you certainly sin, if, having heard the decrees of the Apostolic See, and of the universal church, and that the same is confirmed by holy writ, you refuse to follow them; for, though your fathers were holy, do you think that their small number, in a corner of the remotest island, is to be preferred before the universal church of Christ throughout the world?"

link

1300 years later, our Bishop seems to feel the same way. Shortly after his ordination Bishop Terence Drainey said:

All my priestly life so far I have believed that the will of God is most often expressed to me in and through my superiors, especially my bishop and the teachings of the Church, proposed and proclaimed by our Holy Father, the Pope.

link

Now, I don't have a degree in theology but I would have thought that the obvious result of all this would be a clearly visible link between what goes on in Rome and Middlesbrough. A person from Middlesbrough might go to Rome and think "Ah, so this is where Bishop Drainey gets his ideas".

I don't think it's unreasonable to think that if St Wilfrid were our Bishop today then such a link would exist.

For instance, when we go to Rome we see the Pope distributing communion like this:

Last week as he marked the 1300th anniversary of St Wilfrid's death, Bishop Drainey honoured St Wilfrid by following in his footsteps by closely emulating the actions of the Pope. Or not...

I'm perfectly aware that Bishop Drainey is not being disobedient here. The Vatican have given permission for English Bishops to allow communion in the hand.

But is that really what it comes down to? Does fidelity to Pope Benedict begin and end with the bare minimum? With doing only what is required?

As examples go, it's not spectacular.

I know it's not a competition, but the numbers of pilgrims to each of the locations during the tour of the relics of St Therese have been released and Middlesbrough has done rather well.

Westminster Cathedral 95,000
Salford 30,000
Aylesford 17,000
Liverpool 17,000
Middlesbrough 15,000
Leeds 14,000
Birmingham 11,000
Kensington Carmelite Church 10,000
York Minster 10,000
Lancaster 8,000
Nottingham 8,000
Oxford 6,200
Filton 6,000
Newcastle 5,000
Walsingham 5,000
Portsmouth 4,500
Cardiff 4,400
Notting Hill Carmel 3,500
Coleshill 3,000
Kirk Edge Carmel (Sheffield) 3,000
Plymouth 3,000
Gerrards Cross 2,000
Manchester University Catholic Chaplaincy 2,000
Preston Carmel 2,000
Taunton 1,800
Wormwood Scrubs 250

Total: 286,650 pilgrims

Source

I don't say this to brag but rather to point out that anybody who might claim there is no hunger in our area for traditional devotions no longer has a leg to stand on.

Perhaps we could have more in a similar vein in future?

I don't read The Tablet because frankly, it's pretty dull. It's like listening to children trying to justify petty theft on the grounds that, well, they wanted some chocolate and it was mean of mummy not to let them have it. The explanations go on and on and round and round in circles in the apparent hope that sheer number of words will overcome the unchangeable truth that they are wrong.

Every now and then though, somebody flags up an article or in this case and editorial that is worth commenting on. This time it's an editorial entitled The problem with men...

Conservative thinkers on marriage, present at the Malta gathering and at a second conference in Gdansk, tend towards the view that a return to traditional values might strengthen marriage. But they have failed to describe convincingly how to put the clock back, even if it was agreed that that was desirable.

...

Evidence given at the Gdansk conference, also reported on page 14, appeared to show that it is the male failure to adapt to the way women have moved away from traditional female roles that causes tensions in many relationships, even leading to their eventual collapse. Rather than live with a man who refuses to adjust, and despite the difficulties where there are children, many women have chosen to become single again. Men are the problem after all, it seems. So the fundamental question is how they can become part of the solution.

[link]

Pretending for a moment that this caricature is true and it is even possible to paint in such broad brush strokes across entire genders - how is it possible men's "fault" that women "have moved away from traditional female roles" and caused "tensions"? You started it...

I remember now. Everything is men's fault.

The truth is, as Fr Dwight Longenecker puts it:

What kind of kooks are these Tabletistas?

...

What they really mean is that men are supposed to spoil them even more, indulge their little feminist whims, kow tow to their ideologies, be bullied by their emotional swings and march behind their bandwagon.

My view? Marriage is collapsing because most people don't know what it is. To understand what it is, you would need to know what love is - self sacrificing, dead on a cross type love. You don't have to be capable of it, but the whole point of the exercise is to try.

The "women going to work" thing is a red herring. Marriages don't break down because a woman expects a career any more than they break down because a man expects his shirt to be ironed.

Obviously there are notable exceptions, mental health problems, when people turn violent, when there is emotional and sexual abuse, when children are placed in danger. But on the whole, in the majority of cases:

Marriages break down because partners expect to have, when they should be expecting to give.

Archbishop Vincent Nichols has sent a clear message to Married Catholics...

In July Terry Prendergast hit the headlines for his opinions which the Bishop's Conference's own spokesperson said "are clearly not a reflection of the Church's teaching". Three months later Terry Prendergast is still the head of Marriage Care, taking your money from the collection plate and using it to undermine the Christian vision of marriage.

In three months, Archbishop Nichols who is the president of Marriage Care has done nothing. Message received and understood.

Now we know where we stand.

Update:

After speaking with priests, receiving several emails and considering the comments below I have removed the offending image. My view remains that Archbishop Nichols has stuck his fingers up to married Catholics everywhere and that my image is nowhere near as shocking as the reality it reflects.

Ella has expressed a desire that this be a "family friendly blog" and I agree with her. In future, I promise I will keep things clean.

If anybody has a suggestion for an a more appropriate graphic then let me know and I'll see what I can do.

Due to the fact that his sanctuary floor has been removed during the renovation works that are currently underway, Fr Ray Blake of St Mary Magdalen had no choice (I bet he was gutted) but to say his Ordinary Form Mass Ad Orientem...

Like any reasonable man, I am deeply offended by this photo. The way the priest is clearly lording it over the ordinary folk in the congregation like some kind of celebrity gameshow host. It's obviously all about him.

Um...

The only thing I can think to say when I read the recent circlar from Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith to the people of his diocese is:

Can we have one?

I've already promised to keep the blog clean from now on, but the following is still of interest.

St Paul (via Mark Shea)...

That reminds me. Periodically, I will use a... coarse word when it seems to me to be apt. My profound moral guidance in this is St. Paul who, in the course of majoring in majors in the his battle with the Circumcision Party, opted not to major in minors by fretting that he wrote the Greek equivalent of "sh*t" when he said "Indeed I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ" (Phil 4:8) The word politely translated "refuse" has an earthier and more organic meaning. He also recommended that the Circumcision guys go all the way and castrate themselves (Gal 5:12). Strong language that. But nobody wrings their hands about how Paul is "a bad witness". RHIP, I guess.

[link]

St Thomas More...

But meanwhile, for as long as your reverend paternity will be determined to tell these shameless lies, others will be permitted, on behalf of his English majesty, to throw back into your paternity's sh*tty mouth, truly the sh*t-pool of all sh*t, all the muck and sh*t which your damnable rottenness has vomited up, and to empty out all the sewers and privies onto your crown divested of the dignity of the priestly crown, against which no less than against the kingly crown you have determined to play the buffoon.

In your sense of fairness, honest reader, you will forgive me that the utterly filthy words of this scoundrel have forced me to answer such things, for which I should have begged your leave. Now I consider truer than truth that saying: 'He who touches pitch will be wholly defiled by it' (Sirach 13:1). For I am ashamed even of this necessity, that while I clean out the fellow's sh*t-filled mouth I see my own fingers covered with sh*t.

[link]

St Francis...

Rufino is also the protagonist of a very touching episode: his encounter with the devil in the form of a crucifix that reduced him to a state of confusion and doubt, both towards Francis and about his own path so that he no longer wished to see Francis. Masseo stood by him, but it was Francis who put an end to Rufino’s crisis, after the spirit had revealed the condition in which the friar found himself. “Oh Brother Rufino, you naughty boy, whom have you believed?” When he came the saint told him in detail all about the temptation, exterior and interior, which he had suffered from the devil, not from Christ, and therefore he should in no way consent to his suggestions. “But when the devil says to you again: ‘You are damned’, you answer him confidently: ‘Open your mouth and I will sh*t in it’, and let it be a sign to you that he is the devil that when you say those words, he will immediately go away…

[link]

Perhaps if people were more willing to turn a blind eye to a bit of coarse language now and then, we might have more men in the Church like St Paul, St Thomas More and St Francis and be less like the National Association of Old Ladies.

Just a thought...

By now, there is nothing you don't already know and haven't read somewhere else about yesterdays exciting news.

I expect the effect of this will be very similar to that of Summorum Pontificum. E.g. Here on the ground, very little is going to change. We are not going to see Anglican Catholic parishes (or whatever we're supposed to call them) popping up all over the place. It's highly unlikely that Ella and I will have the opportunity to use one to find some decent liturgy for our kids.

The significance of this move, like Summorum Pontificum, is that it changes the whole feel of the Church. Last week it seemed impossible and outlandish that any deal might be done between Rome and traditional Anglicans - a pipe dream. Everybody was certain that the status quo would be maintained. Now we have movement and this puts many other issues and discussions in a different light. That which seemed impossible may be possible. Hey - maybe the Pope will mandate communion on the tongue again. What never? No never! Hardly ever...

Things that will never happen have happened.

Recently.

This gives enormous hope and encouragement to those of us who would like to see the return of ad orientem and a bit of latin now and then.

Of couse, no good deed goes unpunished. The arrangement for Anglicans allows (so I understand it) married men who are not priests to become priests. This is an enormous concession - I give it about three days until Fr Fun down the road is banging on about how "if it's possible for them, let's do it for us!". Dinosaur.

This is like discovering you can talk to somebody by video link over the internet. The future is here. My flying car is looking closer than ever before...

In a recent comment on this blog Xenaphobic Hobbledehoy (what a name) wrote...

A woman once confessed to St Pio that she was in the habit of criticising priests habitually, to which the saint retorted, "Instead of criticising them, why don't you pray for them!"

Just a thought...

[link]

We are Catholics, this is the "both/and" Church. We had an enormous council to decide if Jesus was God or Man and decided he was both. God is both three and one, we can know God through both faith and reason.

So yes, we should pray for priests but we should criticise them as well so long as the motivation behind our criticism is an act of charity - because we love the priest and want him to be all he can be, because we love the congregation and do not wish them to be deprived of their patrimony and heritage.

Criticism, by the way, is not judging. Criticism is a statement of observable facts about a persons actions. This person did X and X is not very nice. He should stop doing X. There is nothing judgemental about that.

Judging is about motive... This person did X because he is a bad man.

I find it very interesting how often criticism is responded to with judgement. Suddenly, somebody presumes to know (perhaps they have a window in to my soul?) what I do and do not pray for - a clever obvservation to make across the internet.

More often it comes in this form: I make a criticism "he shouldn't be using earthenware chalices" and the response is "why can't you be more charitable".

Wow. All I did was make a statement about an observable fact about a persons actions but you claim to be able to look in to my heart and see that I am not motivated by love.

Who is really being judgemental?

Frank Skinner may be one of those "I'm a Catholic but..." type people (he has a policy of "critical loyalty" when it comes to contraception etc) but he also stands up in public as a Catholic at a time when it is very hard to do so.

I liked this...

I really feel there is a God. I know atheism is extremely fashionable nowadays but I just can’t kick this believing thing. I must say that I have a lot of time for atheists. I respect anyone who gives this most momentous question a good deal of thought, whatever conclusion they finally arrive at.

I’m less keen on the glut of bandwagon atheists who’ve just unquestioningly joined in because they think the atheist label makes them sound clever and grown-up. I suspect that they see themselves in an elite senior common room with Bertrand Russell and Charles Darwin while people like me are in Julie’s Pantry with Cliff Richard.

It’s bad enough that many believers never question their own convictions but at least their dumb acceptance comes with an element of “safest option” insurance. I’d have thought, in the bandwagon atheist’s case, that it’s worth having a proper think — maybe even spending an hour on Wikipedia — before turning your back on what might just be a life illuminated by faith. It seems rash to screw up eternity on the strength of something that you read on the side of a bus.

[link]

Of course he goes on to say that he "strugges with" (euphemism for "rejects") certain Catholic teachings but I thought those three paragraphs were worth sharing all the same.

Anna Arco writes...

Despite the growing reality that blogs are just as much part of our media landscape as newspapers, radio and television - so much so that Westminster auxiliary Bishop John Arnold mentioned the outpouring of emotion and joy in the blogosphere about the visit of the relics of St Thérèse of Lisieux from the pulpit at Westminster Cathedral last week - they are still viewed with a great deal of suspicion, especially in the Church.

...

But the common perception is that bloggers are polemicists who specialise in half-truths, rhetorical flourishes and rumours. They are seen to further the rule of the mob, in the form of comment boxes or on social networking sites. And it is common knowledge that in order to succeed as a blogger you have to be angry, you have to have a Twitter account, you need to be controversial, you need to have an opinion and you almost certainly need to have comment boxes.

One of the chief criticisms thrown at the blogosphere, especially the Catholic blogosphere, is that it unleashes a wave of anger and fury and that many commentators show a lack of Christian charity that they would never show in real life.

[link]

Anna, you have it all wrong. You don't have to be angry, you just have to be handsome, dashing and a hit with the ladies.

Um...

I didn't start blogging because I was angry. I started paying attention because I was blogging and it was when I started paying attention that I became angry. Any reasonable person who has been paying attention should be angry. There is a lot to be angry about.

As for this lack of Christian charity... how do people know? They keep using that word, I do not think it means what they think it means.

When he talks about difficult situations, he says: "The best thing for the Church sometimes means writing about difficult truths. Nobody likes them less than me, but at the same time there are always going to repercussions if people find out that we haven't been honest, that we haven't been as transparent as we should have, especially in these days. If we claim to have the capital 'T' Truth then we have to be realistic about the small 't' truth, because if you ignore the second for the sake of the first you're going lose both."

[link]

True dat!

The Sacred Made Real is an exhibition of spanish painting and sculpture at the National Gallery.

Archbishop Nichols went along and did some talks on the sculptures which are well worth a watch.

I liked this comment by Mark Shea about the paranormal...

One is the approach of the so-called rationalist, who simply rejects it all because it doesn't fit into his philosophical system. This is called, in our culture, "the open-minded pursuit of truth wherever the facts may lead" and is the great stick with which to beat ignorant obscurantist theists who fear science and inquiry.

The other approach is that of the Catholic who says, "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy" and who, accordingly, admit the possibility that there may be something in such stories. He does not instantly credit them as true, but is open to investigation and, if the facts point to the reality of such tales, to accepting them as factual. This is called "superstitious fear of science". This is how we know Christians are fools whose best days are behind them and atheistic materialists are the wave of the future and Where History is Going.

[link]

James Hannam whose book God's Philosophers I am in the middle of reading has a piece in the Guardian...

As a historian, the fact that the Catholic Church has been a net contributor to human wellbeing is so obvious that it amazes me that it can even be a subject for debate. This realisation was a factor in my deciding to join the Church in the first place. One can reasonably ask whether Catholicism remains a positive influence today, whatever its record in the past. But even here, the arguments that can be made in favour of the Church are far more ponderous than those for the opposition. So why are Catholics so useless at making their case?

Several reasons spring to mind.

First, as with any massive institution with centuries of history behind it, dreadful things have gone wrong. They almost certainly still are. Catholics have been unwilling, through embarrassment and shame, to face up to these errors. The events that recently emerged from Ireland should disgust all Catholics. Simply admitting to mistakes and promising to do better would take much of the wind out of our opponents' sails. It is the perceived arrogance of the Church in covering up its shortcomings that most offends. People can accept that there will always be bad eggs in the basket. They cannot accept that they were not severely dealt with when discovered.

[link]

This keeps coming up doesn't it - the culture which is favourable to abuse is doing enormous harm to the Church.

In the conversations I have, many people can understand that some priests and nuns get up to no good. They can even usually accept (once shown evidence and statistics) that actually, celibacy and faith seem to have little to do with it, and there have been plenty of cases of abuse from married secular people.

But what nobody can accept is the Bishop who knew something was wrong and did nothing.

As I have said before, this is a problem of culture and the majority of clergy and laypeople alike apply the same process to every ecclesial shortcoming. Our default stance is to act like Fr did nothing wrong and to treat those who make an issue of it like thieves and tax collectors. Those terrible bloggers...

Until we have an atmosphere of openness. Until Bishops are willing meet every public scandal, however "small", with openness and a public response, we will be forever told by outsiders: You are hypocrites, you cover things up, you hide them away.

"It is the perceived arrogance of the Church in covering up its shortcomings that most offends. People can accept that there will always be bad eggs in the basket. They cannot accept that they were not severely dealt with when discovered."

My thanks to Zosia who drew my attention to this. I think she thought I would be interested in the whole article (and I was) but it's the comments of head teacher John Waszek that caught my attention.

Probably because I live in a fantasy land where head teachers of Catholic schools are actually Catholic...

What defines your religion?

A better Catholic

Then there's the question of what constitutes "membership" of a religion. For Catholics, for example, baptism is usually the mark of membership and in some Catholic dioceses baptism, regardless of observance, is the main criterion for admission to Catholic schools.

John Waszek, headmaster of St Edward's College, a leading Catholic state secondary in Liverpool, says: "For some parents involvement in church is difficult - a single mum will find it harder to be involved in their church rather than a two parent family with two jobs.

"Someone who runs a football club - taking those children off the streets - who's to say they are not being a better Catholic that someone who goes to church every day of the week?"

Look. It's not hard. Going to Mass is required.

I understand that a single mum will find it harder to get her kids to Mass on a morning and will find it harder to stay in control of them when she gets there. That's a very good reason for the rest of us to be as helpful and understanding as we can. Being a single mum is not a get out of jail free card that let's you skip Mass and still be "a good Catholic".

Then we have the football club. Taking those children off the streets because those children couldn't possibly be taken off the streets to go to Mass could they? Oh no. Even if your football club meets every Sunday and you have no choice but to go (in your humanitarian effords to get children off the streets and definitely not because you like football) you can always go to Mass at another time.

Let's not bury this in relativism (whose a "better" Catholic"?) and faux humanitarianism (getting the kids of the streets). Catholics should go to Mass and if they don't then there's a problem.

Head teachers of Catholic Schools like Mr Waszek have a duty to uphold Catholic teaching, not to help talk people out of the Eucharistic sacrifice.

I wonder how he feel about Connexions...

Due to the influence of the terrible Jackie Parkes, (boo! hiss!) this blog entry contains references to WOMEN! Okay, there's nothing wrong with women as such, but as a married man I do feel a bit uncomfortable with the whole "what does it for you?" thing...

I'm tempted to put up a poll...how do Catholic men like their women to look? But I'm scared of James Preece! Actually between him & me..we do push the boat out on our blogs. May he & I continue to do so!

[link]

How do Catholic men like their women?

I suggest you ask John C Wright who seems to have given quite a bit of thought to the subject.

Actually, Jackie's blog entry was in response to an (only slightly) more serious article in the Daily Mail in which we are told what we knew all along: That most men prefer women who are normal and healthy looking to women who are wierdly skeletal looking.

I think the moral of the story for most girls is that honestly, seriously, you are better looking than you think you are.

Not that I've noticed (we married men are blind to other women).

[link]

Since I don't have time to write a proper blog entry this morning, you can enjoy yourselves a bit of Chesterton...

The life of the great civilisation went on with dreary industry and even with dreary festivity. It was the end of the world, and the worst of it was that it need never end. A convenient compromise had been made between all the multitudinous myths and religions of the Empire; that each group should worship freely and merely live a sort of official flourish of thanks to the tolerant Emperor, by tossing a little incense to him under his official title of Divus. Naturally there was no difficulty about that; or rather it was a long time before the world realised that there ever had been even a trivial difficulty anywhere. The members of some Eastern sect or secret society or other seemed to have made a scene somewhere; nobody could imagine why. The incident occurred once or twice again and began to arouse irritation out of proportion to its insignificance. It was not exactly what these provincials said; though of course it sounded queer enough. They seemed to be saying that God was dead and that they themselves had seen him die. This might be one of the many manias produced by the despair of the age; only they did not seem particularly despairing. They seem quite unnaturally joyful about it, and gave the reason that the death of God had allowed them to eat him and drink his blood. According to other accounts God was not exactly dead after all; there trailed through the bewildered imagination some sort of fantastic procession of the funeral of God, at which the sun turned black, but which ended with the dead omnipotence breaking out of the tomb and rising again like the sun. But it was not the strange story to which anybody paid any particular attention; people in that world had seen queer religions enough to fill a madhouse. It was something in the tone of the madmen and their type of formation. They were a scratch company of barbarians and slaves and poor and unimportant people; but their formation was military; they moved together and were very absolute about who and what was really a part of their little system; and about what they said. However mildly, there was a ring like iron. Men used to many mythologies and moralities could make no analysis of the mystery, except the curious conjecture that they meant what they said. All attempts to make them see reason in the perfectly simple matter of the Emperor’s statue seemed to be spoken to deaf men. It was as if a new meteoric metal had fallen on the earth; it was a difference of substance to the touch. Those who touched their foundation fancied they had struck a rock.

With a strange rapidity, like the changes of a dream, the proportions of things seemed to change in their presence. Before most men knew what had happened, these few men were palpably present. They were important enough to be ignored. People became suddenly silent about them and walked stiffly past them. We see a new scene, in which the world has drawn its skirts away from these men and women and they stand in the centre of a great space like lepers. The scene changes again and the great space where they stand is overhung on every side with a cloud of witnesses, interminable terraces full of faces looking down towards them intently; for strange things are happening to them. New tortures have been invented for the madmen who have brought good news. That sad and weary society seems almost to find a new energy in establishing its first religious persecution. Nobody yet knows very clearly why that level world has thus lost its balance about the people in its midst; but they stand unnaturally still while the arena and the world seem to revolve round them. And there shone on them in that dark hour a light that has never been darkened; a white fire clinging to that group like an unearthly phosphorescence, blazing its track through the twilights of history and confounding every effort to confound it with the mists of mythology and theory; that shaft of light or lightning by which the world itself has struck and isolated and crowned it; by which its own enemies have made it more illustrious and its own critics have made it more inexplicable; the halo of hatred around the Church of God.

[link]

Theology, like any other ology (anthropology, biology, sociology) is supposed to be the study of some kind of reality. Theology is not an excercise in make believe.

The Swiss theologian Hans Küng was highly critical of the Pope’s gesture. Writing for The Guardian this week he said it was an example of “the Roman thirst for power” which “divides Christianity and damages its own Church”. He said it would lead to a further weakening of the Anglican Church, the widespread disturbance of the Anglican faithful, and the irritation of Catholic clergy and laity in favour of married priests.

[link]

Hans Küng wouldn't know what reality was if it poked him in the eye.