New blog from Stuart McCullogh

Stuart and his wife run Good Counsel Network. He's recently started blogging under the name Ecumenical Diablog. with some great posts: Bishop McMahon of Brentwood leading a pro-life prayer vigil, why one shouldn't buy The Tablet, etc.

Praying at the Maidstone Marie Stopes Clinic

A correspondent asked: how did it go? It was cold, windy, raining. It was not pleasant. We were called 'hypocrites' by a mother with a child and a baby in a buggy who thought the pavement was her own. These prayer vigils are organised in co-operation with the police. We do not obstruct the pavement, standing on the kerb across the road from the clinic so that people can easily pass by, yet this mother 'accidentally on purpose' knocked into one of our pray-ers, almost knocking her into the road. Had a car been passing something serious could have happened. Thankfully, all our pray-ers know that they should never retaliate but remain calm and, preferably, silent.


Whilst we were praying, our kerbside counsellor came over to us to tell us to pray hard because she could see where we couldn't and it appeared that a young girl was trying to get out of the clinic but she was being forced in by her mother. It appears the girl was being forced to take an abortion pill. Later on a Marie Stopes staff member was seen allegedly checking the floor outside the entrance to ensure that the tablet had not been spat out.

I saw the young girl as she left the clinic - she couldn't have been aged more than 14 years old, accompanied by the mother and a young lad.

We also saw a car pull up, driven by a man with a young woman in the passenger seat. She was clearly struggling with her emotions and, after seeing us, the car drove off. I saw it park further down the road, turn round as if to come back, but then turn round again to drive off. Some fifteen minutes later, the car returned, but drove past, the driver looking very unpleasantly at us.

All we were doing was saying our prayers with nothing more than a picture of Our Lady of Guadalupe as a banner.

Further, we saw a young man come out, obviously having left his partner inside. He hung around further up the road and then disappeared while we were praying.

This was the day after Ash Wednesday. I only lead the group a few times a year, but this was when I experienced the war with Satan as never before. My conscience is troubling me that we did nothing more than pray to help that young teenage girl and the child she may have been carrying. When will there be martyrs for the unborn child?

When will more priests and bishops see this grave injustice as worth giving up their time and comfort for?

The collect of Ash Wednesday remains apt:

Support us, Lord, as with this Lenten fast
we begin our Christian warfare,
so that in doing battle against the spirit of evil
we may be armed with the weapon of self-denial.

The Tablet's Homosexual agenda

John Smeaton of SPUC draws our attention to the editorial in the latest edition of The Tablet.

The editorial is entitled "Deepest Human Desire" and, as John Smeaton illustrates, exposes - if it was not clear enough already - that it completely dissents from the Catholic Church's teaching on the sinfulness of homosexual relations in

argu(ing) that "the Church [should] move on with confidence, if not doctrinally then at least pastorally" on the subject of homosexuality". Among other things, it:

* implies that the Church is open to the charge of "anti-­homosexual prejudice, even bigotry"
* says that the Church should "move beyond a sterile state of dis­approval" of homosexuality, lest it "lose the sympathy of wide sections of the public"
* criticises "the Church's inability to comprehend and value [homosexual persons'] emotional lives [and] their relationships"
* implies homosexual love "is to be treasured and respected"
* insists that homosexuals must be defined "positively ... by their affections"
* claims that there are homosexual couples who "demonstrate a constancy and a stability in their partnerships that, rather than causing scandal, set an example to their heterosexual friends and relations"
* questions whether homosexual men or women are unsuitable parents
* questions whether homosexuality is unnatural, and implies that homosexuality is innate rather than acquired.

In asking the Church to show more understanding, it is difficult to know what more the Church can do.

In 1986 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persions in which it stated among other things:

It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.(n.10)

The characteristic concern and good will exhibited by many clergy and religious in their pastoral care for homosexual persons is admirable, and, we hope, will not diminish. Such devoted ministers should have the confidence that they are faithfully following the will of the Lord by encouraging the homosexual person to lead a chaste life and by affirming that person's God-given dignity and worth.(n.13)

But the Church will always remain true to Her teaching on this matter which derives from natural law. If there is anything that the Bishops must learn from the intolerant outcry of the secular humanists to which I referred earlier, it is that there are certain elements outside the Church, but more particularly within the Church, who will not listen. They fall within the dissent that Pope Benedict asked them to recognise for what it is when he said in his ad limina speech to our Bishops:

In a social milieu that encourages the expression of a variety of opinions on every question that arises, it is important to recognize dissent for what it is, and not to mistake it for a mature contribution to a balanced and wide-ranging debate.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

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

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

Last Sunday (31st Jan) I spoke in my homily about the Government's proposed equality legislation and the question of the possible employment of 'gay' people in civil partnerships as headteachers or for other leadership posts in Church establishments, following on from the comments of Bishop McMahon mentioned in an earlier post. In making my position clear as identical with the Church's position, I also said that I have accepted invitations to have dinner with homosexual couples and I would not avoid associating with people known to identify themselves as experiencing a homosexual orientation, as long as it would not cause scandal. I have also learnt much from others whose children find themselves in this situation. I think we must go a long, long, way to show understanding and love to these people, never rejecting them. But also maintaining the truth, derived as it is from natural law, about the need for grace to deal with an orientation which is not, in itself, rightly ordered.

I don't see how The Tablet's argument can square up with this and wonder how can any faithful Catholic priest could allow The Tablet to be sold in his parish?

Catholic Education - a nail in the coffin?

One reason I was all but silent on the blog from early December to early January was that I was very concerned about our Catholic Education. I wanted to write, but not rant. Allow to explain some of my worries.

This weekend's issue of the Tablet (Bishop pledges not to pry into teachers’ private lives) reports that Bishop Malcolm McMahon, the Chairman of the Catholic Education Service, "has promised that the Church will not investigate the private lives of applicants for the headships of Catholic schools." The promise has been made in the light of the increasing difficulty encountered in the recruitment of candidates for headships whose lives fully correspond to the Church's teaching, particularly as regards marriage.

But Bishop Malcolm McMahon told The Tablet that the backgrounds of potential school leaders were not the concern of the Church and it should be up to applicants themselves to decide whether they were able to live according to church teaching. “Their family life isn’t scrutinised,” said the bishop. “I’d be rather ashamed if the Church was doing that to people. But we do expect people in leadership in the Church to live out their Christian commitment as best they can.”

I feel this is yet another 'nail in the coffin' of Catholic Education in our country.

The backgrounds of potential school leaders, indeed of every living soul, is of immense concern to the Church since She is concerned about the salvation, not only of those who lead our schools, but of those whom they are charged to lead and teach. There needs to be some way of ensuring that our teachers are exemplary in their lives. Only in that way can they give example to the pupils and teach coherently what the Church teaches.

The Code of Canon Law reminds both teachers and Ordinaries of their responsibilities in this regard:

Can. 803 #2: The instruction and education in a Catholic school must be grounded in the principles of Catholic doctrine; teachers are to be outstanding in correct doctrine and integrity of life.
Can. 804 #2: The local Ordinary is to be concerned that those who are designated teachers of religious instruction in schools ... are outstanding in correct doctrine, the witness of a Christian life, and teaching skill.
Can. 805: For his own diocese, the local Ordinary has the right to appoint or approve teachers of religion and even to remove them or demand that they be removed if a reason of religion or morals requires it.

So, it is evident that there needs to be some manner of establishing whether a teacher - and therefore a head teacher - is outstanding in correct doctrine and the witness of a Christian life and that there is no reason of morals why they should not be appointed. How is this to be done if not by enquiring (notice the less loaded language I choose as an alternative to "investigate") into these matters. Surely we have a right to ask, in this day and age when marriage in particular is undermined, whether a candidate's life in this regard is in keeping with the Church's teaching, in particular:

- if married, have they been married in accordance with the laws of the Church?
- if unmarried, are they 'living together' with anyone?
- have they entered into a civil partnership?

and to insist that they enter into a contract to always live by the Church's teaching this regard.

But Bishop McMahon does not see that being in a civil partnership is a problem. The Tablet reports:

He also said that the Church was not opposed to civil partnerships. “Civil partnerships are precisely what they say they are. They’re not gay marriages or lesbian marriages. They’re simply a legal arrangement between two people so that they can pass on property and other rights in which they were discriminated against before,” he said. “We have many gay people in education and a large number of gay people in the Church, at least the same as the national average. I think a person who is leading a church school should live according to the Church’s teaching whether they are in a civil partnership or not. A civil partnership is not a marriage, it’s not a conjugal relationship.”

Firstly, I think it is regrettable that Bishop McMahon adopts the descriptive 'gay' to people. I prefer to follow the Catechism of the Catholic Church in thinking of so-called 'gay' people as those 'who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction towards persons of the same sex', acknowledging that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered' as is the inclination itself. (CCC 2357,2358) Hopefully, Catholics who experience this struggle have recourse to the help of God's grace to control this inclination and even overcome it, to live chaste lives and friendships.(CCC 2358,2359)

Secondly, if by "the Church" we mean Pope Benedict and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the authentic Magisterium of the Church, we would have to point out Bishop McMahon's error in this regard. The Tablet does have the fairness to refer to the campaign of the Bishops' Conference of England and Wales against civil partnerships and to say that Bishop McMahon takes a softer line on these issues - all the more reason that we should be worried that he is now Chairman of the CES.

We should respectfully refer Bishop McMahon to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's June 2003 document Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons in which arguments from reason are given against the legal recognition of homosexual unions and then the position of Catholic politicians faced with the question of such legal recognition.

We read:

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection. (n.5)

Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.(n.6)

The normalisation of these forms of union also affect the perception of young people's perception of marriage:

Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation's perception and evaluation of forms of behaviour. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage.(n.6)

On the question of rights and discrimination:

Because married couples ensure the succession of generations and are therefore eminently within the public interest, civil law grants them institutional recognition. Homosexual unions, on the other hand, do not need specific attention from the legal standpoint since they do not exercise this function for the common good.

Nor is the argument valid according to which legal recognition of homosexual unions is necessary to avoid situations in which cohabiting homosexual persons, simply because they live together, might be deprived of real recognition of their rights as persons and citizens. In reality, they can always make use of the provisions of law – like all citizens from the standpoint of their private autonomy – to protect their rights in matters of common interest. It would be gravely unjust to sacrifice the common good and just laws on the family in order to protect personal goods that can and must be guaranteed in ways that do not harm the body of society.(n.9)

On the responsibility of Catholic politicians, the CDF advise (my emphasis):

If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians.

About rights and discrmination, The Tablet reports Bishop McMahon as saying:

(Civil partnerships are) simply a legal arrangement between two people so that they can pass on property and other rights in which they were discriminated against before.

The point is, however, that this was not a form of unjust discrimination. It was a recognition that marriage is a unique form of partnerhip in which a family is formed, and that the goods of the partners become the goods of the family and, rightly, pass to surviving members of the family on the death of one or other spouse. This ensures not only the good of the family but the good of society too. Marriage uniquely concerns the common good.

It is now those who are unable to enter into civil partnerships who are discriminated against: unmarried siblings who spend a lifetime together, perhaps caring for one another; priests who have been served lovingly by selfless housekeepers; etc. These cannot make use of these civil partnerships precisely because the assumption is that the relationship is sexual. Therefore the notion that civil partnerships have nothing to do with homosexuality is quite naive. The fact that Bishop McMahon refers to "the many gay people (we have) in education" shows that it is homosexual people he has in mind when talking about prospective headteachers and others being in civil partnerships. Tony Blair, that celebrated "convert" to the Catholic Faith and architect of this legislation, wrote in The Independent on 21st December 2005:

It (the new legislation) gives gay and lesbian couples who register their relationship the same safeguards over inheritance, insurance and employment and pension benefits as married couples.

And at a Stonewall dinner in March, reported by UK Gay News, Blair spoke of his real pride and joy about this legislation and the rights it has given to homosexual people.

I think we are within our rights to presume that people who have entered into a civil partnership are in a same sex relationship. Even if they are not, this common presumption will naturally give rise to scandal amongst those who uphold the natural institution of marriage. It will particularly scandalise those Catholic parents who care about this matter if their children's school's head teacher or other teacher is in such a partnership.

There is another very important matter and that is the question of discrimination within the Church that this statement implies. The reason why the CES is getting soft on recruitment is because of the pressures of equality legislation. Yet all Catholics, and our Catholic Schools, are subject to Divine Law and Ecclesiastical Law. If Catholic headteachers will not have their 'family life' scrutinised, why should Catholic priests not have the same right to privacy? Perhaps I might, after all, support the Government's move to have priests recognised not as office holders but as employees, just to illustrate the consequences for the Church of applying double standards - one for its laity and another for its clergy.

Clergy are now less able to defend orthodox teaching in our schools. We are becoming more and more sidelined as we seek to uphold the Church's teaching by our teaching and, more importantly, by our example. Catholic headteachers and, indeed, all teachers in our Catholic schools, should have the same obligation. And if we cannot recruit satisfactory candidates, we need to reassess the provision of Catholic education, considering a redeployment of funds and resources into educational projects that will be more effective at passing on the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth, to future generations.

The Tablet and the Personal Ordinariate

As expected The Tablet this weekend covers the latest response of the Holy Father to the requests made by traditional Anglicans.

The editorial is quite balanced but typically nuanced.

But this Vatican initiative will make the work of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity more difficult, for partners in dialogue could well be suspicious that the agenda of the Catholic Church, while seemingly about Christian unity, is otherwise.

Well, surely the agenda is unity and erecting structures that enable people to pass from a non-catholic community to the Catholic Church is an excellent way of achieving this.

It will also cause concern that the pontifical council (for Christian unity) is being left out of the loop on matters of huge importance affecting its dialogue partners, given that its officials were not kept up to speed on the issue by the CDF, and despite the fact that the council’s president, Cardinal Walter Kasper, is also is a member of the congregation.

Fr Tim Finigan appears to have some inside information about votes etc. when he writes:

The process leading to the new Apostolic Constitution has been an extraordinarily complex, in-depth study, involving widespread consultation, and including communications with sitting Bishops of the Anglican Communion who were in favour of some such arrangement. The Holy See could not simply refuse to talk to such parties clamouring for full canonical union with the Catholic Church. Naturally the process of consultation involved the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity, whose Secretary (Bishop Brian Farrell) is a Consultor of the CDF, and whose President (Cardinal Kasper) is one of the 15 Cardinal Members of the CDF. Some elements within the Pontifical Council were obviously not too happy with the whole notion of corporate reunion, however, in the end they were outvoted.

The Tablet continues:

One Church’s loss is inevitably another’s gain. Few would deny that the influx of new blood brought many benefits to the Catholic Church last time. The requirement of celibacy was waived in the case of ordained Anglican clergy, which means there are now a significant number of married priests happily serving the Catholic community in England and Wales with no real problems. More of the same will no doubt sharpen the sense of anomaly concerning Catholic priests who have had to accept laicisation as the price of marriage. There are many things in Anglicanism from which Catholicism can profit, not least an enhanced role for the laity in church government and a rich liturgical heritage. What the Anglicans may gain, in return, is a deeper sacramentality. And they may even discover, once it ceases to be such a neuralgic point, that they can be more open to the ministry of women.

I don't think the erection of a Personal Ordinariate with married former anglican clergy being ordained as Catholic priests has anything to do with the theologically founded discipline of clerical continence which will always remain the norm in the Latin Church. Neither will the norms on the roles of laity and clergy in parish pastoral councils, finance committees etc. change. The current Code of Canon Law sets out clearly how laity can co-operate in the exercise of the Church's power of governance and lay people occupy incredibly influential positions in Schools Commissions, Finance Offices, etc, which were the domain of the clergy in the past. And will the Traditional Anglicans be looking to take on armies of women to carry outtraditionally clerical functions? I doubt it.

Parallels are drawn, not unsurprisingly, with Pope Benedict's overtures to the SSPX, made in the name of the same desire for the unity of the Church, but The Tablet goes too far in mentioning Tony Blair in the same sentence as John Henry Newman. The latter held firmly to the Catholic doctrines of the Fathers of the Church. The former does not, and many are still scandalised by his reception into the Catholic Church.

Earlier this year, in response to the lifting of the excommunications of four Lefebvrist bishops, Pope Benedict wrote: “Leading men and women to God, to the God who speaks in the Bible: this is the supreme and fundamental priority of the Church and the Successor of Peter at the present time” – a sentiment which will resonate with Anglicans accepting the Petrine ministry. The most important issue for all Catholics is that anyone of good conscience who seeks to join their Church, be they John Henry Newman, or Tony Blair, or the vicar of an Anglican parish or his flock, should be given a generous and hospitable welcome to their new home.

Archbishop Nichols is quoted in another article in the same edition of today's Tablet:

I salute the courage and generosity of Pope Benedict, who has again shown an open and loving heart, just as one would expect of a Holy Father.

Amen!

St Therese and the Priesthood

Photo: catholicrelics.co.uk

It is so highly appropriate for us in the UK that the relics of St Therese should be visiting here during the year dedicated to prayer for priests. St Therese had a great veneration for priests and she prayed for them.

We read in her autobiography (all quotations from Story of a Soul 3rd edition translated by John Clarke OCD, ICS Publications, Washington DC, 1996)that in the examination preceding her Profession, she declared at the feet of Jesus-Victim what she had come to Carmel for:

I came to save souls and especially to pray for priests.

In her Story of a Soul we read about her experience of priests when she visited Rome. It was not altogether edifying but it moved her to prayer.

Having never lived close to them (priests), I was not able to understand the principal aim of the Reform of Carmel. To pray for sinners attracted me, but to pray for the souls of priests whom I believed to be as pure as crystal seemed puzzling to me.

I understood my vocation in Italy... I lived in the company of many saintly priests for a month and I learned that, though their dignity raises them above the angels, they are nevertheless weak and fragile men. If holy priests, whom Jesus in His Gospel calls the "salt of the earth", show in their conduct their extreme need for prayers, what is to be said of those who are tepid? Didn't Jesus say too: "If the salt loses its savour, wherewith will it be salted?"

How beautiful is the vocation ... which has as its aim the preservation of the salt destined for souls! This is Carmel's vocation since the sole purpose of our prayers and sacrifices is to be the apostle of the apostles. We are to pray for them while they are preaching to souls through their words and especially their example.

St Therese also speaks of a desire

which appeared totally unrealisable to me, that of having a brother as a priest. I often thought that had my little brothers [who had died in early childhood] not flown away to heaven, I would have had the happiness of seeing them mount the altar.

On the feast of St Teresa of Avila in 1895, Mother Agnes of Jesus read to Therese a letter from a young seminarian.

He was asking for a Sister who would devote herself especially to the salvation of his soul and aid him through her prayers and sacrifies when he was a missionary so that he could save many souls. He promised to remember the one who would become his sister at the Holy Sacrifice each day after he was ordained. Mother Agnes of Jesus told me she wanted me to become the sister of this future missionary.

St Therese says she found it impossible to describe her joy at acquiring this new little brother.

In May 1896, she was called again and asked to "take charge of the spiritual interests of a missionary who is to be ordained and leave very soon." Afraid that she could not pray as well for two priests as for one, she recalled that "the zeal of a Carmelite embraces the whole world" and accepted the honour of having two brothers.

I hope with the grace of God to be useful to more than two missionaries and I could not forget to pray for all without casting aside simple priests whose mission at times is as difficult to carry out as that of apostles preaching to the infidels.

So her heart expanded to pray for all priests, "missionary" and "simple", in addition to her two "brothers".

What of her well-known desire to be a priest?

In last weekend's Tablet letters section, a correspondent, Katharine Salmon, writes:

What sustained Therese was her absolute confidence in the love of God, and this confidence was reflected in the certainty that God had called her to Carmel, and to the ordained priesthood, something she could not live out in earthly life, but would in heaven. It seems surprising that since Thérèse was declared Doctor of the Church in 1997, only one of her biographers, Claude Langlois, has linked her vocation to love and her vocation to priesthood. In this year of the priest, it may be helpful for those reflecting on the renewal of ordained ministry to look anew at the priesthood Thérèse speaks about – a priesthood where there is room for women and men in all states of life. She has been known as the patron saint of women’s ordination for several decades. On the occasion of her relics’ visit to Britain, let those who believe in a renewed ordained priesthood for women and men ask Thérèse for a shower of heavenly roses.

The appropriation of St Therese for the cause of the ordination of women is not news to me but it is not justified. It is an exageration to suggest that the certainty of a vocation to the priesthood is what sustained Therese. It was love that sustained her, and she found all the "vocations" she felt summed up in love, to be love at the heart of the Church.

This is what St Therese writes about her feelings of vocation to the priesthood:

To be Your Spouse, to be a Carmelite, and by my union with You to be the Mother of souls, should not this suffice me? And yet it is not so. No doubt, these three privileges sum up my true vocation: Carmelite, Spouse, Mother, and yet I feel within me other vocations. I feel the vocation of the WARRIOR, THE PRIEST, THE APOSTLE, THE DOCTOR, THE MARTYR. Finally, I feel the need and the desire of carrying out the most heroic deeds for You, O Jesus. I feel within my soul the courage of the Crusader, the Papal Guard, and I would want to die on the field of battle in defence of the Church.

I feel in me the vocation of the PRIEST. With what love, O Jesus, I would carry You in my hands when, at my voice, You would come down from heaven. And with what love would I give You to souls! But alas! while desiring to be a Priest, I admire and envy the humiliy of St Francis of Assisi and I feel the vocation of imitating him in refusing the sublime dignity of the Priesthood.

St Therese's use of the word "vocation" is one of analogy and expresses desire rather than an objective calling from God. She is very clear that her true vocation is to be a Carmelite, a Spouse, a Mother. All the other "vocations" are things that she desires but is certain that are not the will of God for her. Her heart is huge and has great desires, as every Christian heart should. But we cannot all be head, hands, feet, ear, mouth as St Paul reminds us. And St Therese finally says that her vocation, as regards the priesthood, is that of St Franics: to refuse it.

In this year of the Priesthood, in addition to praying to St Therese for all priests, "missionary" and "simple", we could ask her to intercede for all women, particularly those who are confused about the reasons why they cannot be priests, that they also may find their true vocations in love at the heart of the Church. This indeed would be "a shower of heavenly roses" as Katherine Salmon hopes will be granted through St Therese's prayers.

Bishop Hopes puts The Tablet in its place

Bishop Hopes, one of the auxiliaries of Westminster, has written a letter published in this weekend's Tablet and responding to the recent editorial entitled "The Old Rite put in its place". In his letter he echoes the Archbishop of Westminster's

gratitude to those priests who have given up their time to respond to a need in the Church today

by giving of their time to learn the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite. He says that Archbishop Nichols

is not “seeking to nip potential schism in the bud” or suggesting that the place of the Tridentine Rite is “necessarily marginal”.

I'm sure many will be reassured by this letter which I reproduce in full here:

I am writing with regard to your leader “The old rite put in its place” (8 August). In his message welcoming priests to the training conference provided by the Diocese of Westminster in conjunction with the Latin Mass Society, Archbishop Nichols expresses his gratitude to those priests who have given up their time to respond to a need in the Church today.

By providing this conference for priests wishing to learn the extraordinary rite, the Diocese of Westminster is not only affirming the import ance of the worthy celebration of the liturgy and the proper attention that priests should pay to good celebration but also reminding us that the diocesan bishop is the moderator, promoter and guardian of the whole of the diocese’s liturgical life. He is not “seeking to nip potential schism in the bud” or suggesting that the place of the Tridentine Rite is “necessarily marginal”.

Just as Pope Benedict pointed out in the letter he sent to the Church’s bishops to accompany “Summorum Pontificum”, so the archbishop notes the relationship between the ordinary and the extraordinary forms. Above all he emphasises the importance of the Mass as the “source and expression of the unity of the Church”. In this Year for Priests, Archbishop Vincent recognises the responsibility priests face whatever the form the liturgy takes – the active participation of all. This is an idea, common to papal teaching on the liturgy from the beginning of the twentieth century. This “active participation” has always been understood to be internal and external. To reduce participation to solely external signs is both a simplification and a misguided attack in the “culture wars” you seek to avoid.

(Bishop) Alan Hopes
Auxiliary Bishop of Westminster, London SW1

The Tablet, Purity and Complementarity

Following my previous post and that of other priests concerning The Tablet's editorial on Archbishop Nichols, I have received the following from Father Gregory Charnock, a priest from South Africa whom I had the great pleasure of meeting at the Latin Mass Society Merton College Conference last year. We have kept up an email and telephone correspondence since then. He works in a very challenging parish and I would ask you for your prayers for him and his parish. He has introduced the extraordinary form to his people. Because of poor internet connection, I presume he was unable to put the following as a comment to the post and so he sent it as an email. Here are his comments which I fully endorse.

In view of the wide circulation being given to the Tablet editorial of 8/8/09 and your competent responses, please permit the following additional observation.

In opposing the constant teaching of the Church against artificial contraception, as set forth in Humanae Vitae, the Tablet is no doubt guilty of misleading many of its readers into believing that purity and chastity are somehow no longer the manly, Christian and Catholic values they were universally held to be by all Christians until that Lambeth Conference of +- 1931 left this open to "personal conscience", an unfortunate decision quickly contradicted by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

The consequent loss of "respect for the woman" and consideration of her as "a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment" which is now very widespread, were prophesied by Pope Paul VI in paragraph 17 of Humanae Vitae, along with the increase of immorality,and imposition by governments of "solutions" such as we now see in the horrors of the one child policy in China with forced abortions.

The harm done to countless women by the culture of death, by chemical and other contraceptives, as well as by abortion, all fruit of the same rotten tree, amounts to a program of misogynism on the most massive scale ever in human history. The increased unhappiness resulting from divorce is another result.

No, the illusionary "freedom" from restraint offered to men by the (il)liberals of the Tablet is a misogynism which has left us to face the distorted feminism of broken women suffering the consquences of the arrogance of those who still claim to know better (2 Timothy 4:3).

These same people now seek to impose their errors regarding purity and complementarity on the Church, making her very sanctuaries and altars places where this confusion can be exhibited.

The Church does not like sex. She loves it, therefore surrounding it with reverence for the Creator's loving design (one could say procreation not recreation). Similarly, the Church loves women, with reverence and the deepest respect for their unique and complementary roles.

The Old Rite put in its place

So runs the title of this week's editorial of The Tablet.

The editorial is a reflection on a foreword, written by Archbishop Nichols, to a booklet that will be given to priests taking part in the 24-28 August conference at All Saints Pastoral Centre, London Colney. I do not have the article to hand but can comment on the Tablet's editorial without bringing in personal likes and dislikes, but simply applying the Church's law.

The editor begins:

One of Pope Benedict XVI’s most controversial initiatives has been his promotion of the Tridentine Rite of Mass as an alternative to the revised rite that reflects the reforms of the Second Vatican Council.

Many things that the Church and her pastors direct are controversial simply by being controverted such as the teaching on artificial birth control contained in Pope Paul VI's encyclicalHumanae Vitae and Vatican II's Gaudium et spes. The fact of being controverted does not, however, make them any less legitimate.

The Tablet continues:

His message is unambiguous, and may not please some of those hoping to attend the conference. First, he has insisted that the training conference is officially sponsored by the Diocese of Westminster, “in conjunction with the Latin Mass Society”, thereby keeping it under his control. In church teaching and canon law, he states, bishops are responsible for the oversight of the liturgy. Many feel a bishop’s role in these matters has been undermined by Pope Benedict’s motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum”, which appears to allow priests to opt for the Tridentine Rite regardless of the attitude of local bishops.

Of course, the bishop is the moderator of the liturgy in his diocese, but always in accordance with the universal law of the Church. Whatever people feel, the fact is that Summorum Pontificum does indeed allow priests to celebrate the extraordinary form (which The Tablet insists on calling "the Tridentine Rite") without the permission of the bishop:

Art. 2: In Masses celebrated without the people, each Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or regular, may use the Roman Missal published by Bl. Pope John XXIII in 1962, or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, and may do so on any day with the exception of the Easter Triduum. For such celebrations, with either one Missal or the other, the priest has no need for permission from the Apostolic See or from his Ordinary.

The Tablet:

Archbishop Nichols gives no shred of encouragement to those who want the Tridentine Rite to replace the newer version. Conference participants “will wholeheartedly celebrate the Mass in each of these forms”, he instructs them bluntly, adding: “The view that the ordinary form of the Mass, in itself, is in some way deficient finds no place here.” People who hold that view are “inexorably distancing themselves from the Church”, he says. There is no scope, in other words, for “Tridentine Rite” parishes that set themselves up in the spirit of being “more Catholic than thou”.

Well, I hope it works both ways, that those who refuse to accept the extraordinary form do not consider themselves more catholic than those who prefer the extraordinary form. I would hope that The Tablet, which prides itself on dissent from - or at least controverting upon - much of the Church's official teachings will allow thinking catholics the space to discuss the relative merits of one form of the Mass over the other. After all, the whole point of the provisions of Pope John Paul II's Motu proprio Ecclesia Dei and Pope Benedict's Summorum Pontificum was to respond to the legitimate aspirations of those who remained attached to the older usage. In the former document, Pope John Paul had already written:

(M)oreover, respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962.

Furthermore, Summorum Pontificum allows for the erection of personal parishes and chaplaincies exclusively dedicated to the provision of the extraordinary form:

The ordinary of a particular place, if he feels it appropriate, may erect a personal parish in accordance with can. 518 for celebrations following the ancient form of the Roman rite, or appoint a chaplain, while observing all the norms of law.

My experience of the conference in Merton last year was that most, if not all, of the priests attending were regular parish priests whose daily celebration of the Mass was and would remain in the ordinary form. They would continue to celebrate it "wholeheartedly" even if with the benefit of the "mutual enrichment" envisioned by Pope Benedict in Summorum Pontificum. Also, attendees were provided with the opportunity to celebrate Mass daily in the ordinary or extraordinary form according to their preference, or indeed to concelebrate (in the ordinary form, naturally). So, in fact, both forms of the Mass were being celebrated and the form one celebrated in was not, in my experience, a cause of division or being thought of by the others as being more or less catholic.

The Tablet:

Recognising the threat of such moves, Archbishop Nichols is seeking to nip a potential schism in the bud.

Schism is a very technical word and The Tablet does its readers a great disservice in using it so imprecisely, just as it uses the term "Tridentine Rite" instead of "extraordinary form". There is no potential schism. All those attending the conference are faithful catholic priests.

His firm leadership in Westminster is one that other bishops in England and Wales – and elsewhere – will welcome. The Catholic Church does not need its own version of “culture wars”, and in his message the archbishop in effect declares a priest’s personal tastes or preferences to be irrelevant.

There would be no "wars" if all accepted peaceably the directives of the Holy Father in these matters. The priest now has a right to celebrate the extraordinary form privately whenever he wishes. Any decision to do so is bound to made on the basis of his preferences. The Tablet wants to deny priests their right in this matter.

The Tablet:

Furthermore the distinctive feature of the Tridentine Rite, and the single most pressing reason why the bishops at Vatican II wanted it reformed, was the absence of any role for the laity. They were little more than spectators of what the celebrant was doing at the altar; in practice this meant many of them concentrated on their own private devotions.

We have here a very distorted understanding by The Tablet of active participation. The faithful for whom I celebrate the extraordinary form consider themselves to be very much involved, being drawn into the mysteries they celebrate and praying in union with the priest at the altar. They should not be bullied into making responses, shaking hands etc. if they do not wish to.

Archbishop Nichols insists it is an “established principle of good liturgy” to encourage the active participation of all those taking part in the Mass, a principle needing “careful consideration and application by every celebrant”.

This can be done by instructing the faithful - priests and laity - on the true nature of the Mass so that they have a greater understanding of what is being celebrated and accomplished. In my celebrations of the extraordinary form, I have indeed exercised very "careful consideration and application" so that I may celebrate the Mass with faithfulness to the rubrics and tradition so that the people do not get Father John's Mass but the Mass of the Church.

The Tablet now goes on to make a giant deductive leap:

Implicit in this directive is the rejection of any discrimination against girls and women among those who assist at Mass, such as altar servers, readers and extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist. That some Tridentinist priests have banished females from the sanctuary or lectern in the name of authenticity has more than a whiff of misogyny.

How can The Tablet deduce this conclusion from the Archbishop's words? The Tablet fails to remind its readers that Vatican II directed that the stable ministries of acolytate and lectorate be restored but that the Bishops have not restored these ministries. Why? Because they are reserved to men. So there is a selective application of the directives of the Council. The council and, indeed, the Code of Canon Law, states that other lay faithful - of either sex - may, in the absence of instituted ministers, exercise these roles. But their role is supplementary, not essential. As for extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist, these are not necessary in any Mass. They are permitted if, in the opinion of the parish priest, the distribution of Communion would take too long, but they are not required. And in the extraordinary form, Communion is only given under one kind (although that could be reformed).

What is a "Tridentinist" priest anyway?

Thus has Archbishop Nichols neatly answered virtually every objection to the motu proprio,...

Was that the Archbishop's intention, to "neatly answer virtually every objection to the motu proprio"? Or to give practical guidelines for its implementation.

... and the Tridentine Rite can henceforth take its proper – and necessarily marginal – place in the life of the Catholic Church.

Let the people - not The Tablet - decide whether the extraordinary form (again styled "Tridentine Rite" by The Tablet") will be marginal, as Pope Benedict has given them the right to.

Indeed, he has made it accessible to those who are fully committed to Vatican II.

Just as the ordinary form Mass is accessible to those who are fully committed to Vatican II, including its teaching on artificial birth control (Gaudium et spes) and other issues one could raise such as the infallibility of the Pope and the need for religious submission of intellect and will to the ordinary magisterium of the Church.

This timely display of clear leadership from the new president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales bodes well.

I'm sure it does.

Blogs, Facebook, Texting...

Father Ray Blake has posted on Miss (or Ms) Pepinster's interview on this morning's Sunday programme.

I can sympathise with Archbishop Nicholls' concerns about virtual friendships that do not materialise into the real supportive systems that true friendships are meant to be. But even those friendships can result in great pain when 'friends' let one down.

It's interesting that Ms Pepinster should have been brought in to comment on this matter. She and her Tablet were particularly outfoxed by the world of blogs and facebook after attacking Father Finigan and the apostolate he is carrying out at Blackfen. The blogosphere, twitter, texts etc. have proved an incredily efficient way of getting news around the world in no time at all, for example in the recent demonstrations in Iran. Opinion formers have much to learn from these media.