When you have a six week old baby it's a bit difficult to dissapear for a week, mum tends to notice and I can't imagine she would be very happy about it. So when Fr Massie started hassling me to drop everything for a week long silent ignatian retreat in Hornsea I was pretty certain that I wouldn't be going. At the last minute he told me that it would be okay to go for a day, so I did. Mums notice days, but you can get away with it.

The retreat was based on the spiritual exercises of St Ignatius, these are a month long series of prayers, meditations and contemplative practices. The retreat was only a week long so Fr John Edwards who was running the retreat somehow condensed them down to only a week. I was there for a day... I wasn't sure if I would be trying to do the full week in a day or just a day, I wasn't sure if just a day would make sense, I wasn't sure of anything. I know very little about Ignatian retreats.

I drove to Hornsea last Friday under beautiful blue skies, listening to the local radio station discussing the "news about Michael Jackson", I wasn't entirely sure what the news was and they were not about to tell me and instead said things like "this morning we're discussing the news about Michael Jackson" and then they said things like "it all happened last night our time". I wondered if he had been arrested but the back to back Michael Jackson songs were a strong clue of what had really happened, but they were too polite to mention death on a Friday morning while people are driving to work.

I arrived in time for silent breakfast which was surreal - I wandered across the kitchen looking for the fridge only to discover it was at the other end of the room so I wandered all the way back to open the fridge door only to discover that there were jugs of milk on the table. Then Fr Massie gestured to my mug which I took as an offer of tea and gave him a thumbs up, but is communication of that kind allowed? I don't know the rules! A few minutes later Fr Massie gestured to my cup again - I thought he was offering a top-up so I gave a thumbs up but then went to take my mug away for washing and gave me a strong look of contempt when he realised I hadn't quite finished my tea. Can you give people "looks" on silent retreat?

It turned out that the plan was not for me to cram in a full month of ignatian spirituality in to a day but instead to join them for the days that they did while I was there. Each day Fr John Edwards gave a conference on the theme of the day and told us the grace we would be asking for, in the morning that I was there we were meditating on the passion and the grace we were praying for was "Sorrow, affliction, confusion. Because of my sins, Our Lord is going to his Passion; Anguish with Christ in anguish. Tears; intense pain for his great pain, Suffered for me.

Happy stuff - in the evening we moved on to the ressurection where we asked for the grace to share in Christs joy, so while I was there I meditated on the sorrows of the Passion followed by the joys of the Ressurection which worked quite well. It was a heavy day for me because I wanted to make the most of my one day, so where the programme had an hour and a half gap during which we were supposed to do half an hours meditation, I spent the rest of the time praying or reading my bible. Twelve hours of God-time is a lot in one go when you're not used to it. When I left, I was absolutely shattered.

As Fr John said, the purpose of the retreat is to set up "laboratory conditions" in which to pray and listen to God and I think it worked really well, I'm very glad I went. I don't know if I could cope with a week of what I did, but if I was there for a week I think I would have done things differently and spent more of the non-prayer time on, well, non-prayer. Richard Marsden spent some of his time going for walks and runs on the beach, perhaps I might have spent some time drawing.

All in all, a great thing to have done and someday I would like to do a longer version. My advice to anybody in a position to get along to something like this is to do it, especially if you're young with long holidays, because once you have a family it's very difficult to arrange.

Oh, and do read Richard's account of the retreat. He was there all week.

I stumbled across this on an American website for man people...

To be the man, father, husband or leader you want to be, you must develop and maintain a firm grasp of your N.U.T.s

N.U.T.s - non-negotiable, unalterable terms—are the things that define you as a man. They’re what a man is committed to. And when these N.U.T.s are compromised, men become angry, unhappy, frustrated, depressed. They would rather blame others than take responsibility for their own actions. They’ll play the victim as they take out their negative feelings on those they love. They’re also the guys who will try to drown their sorrows in alcohol, drugs, porn, and a slew of other equally destructive behaviors.

To develop your N.U.T.s, first look at the areas in your life where you’re not being the man you want to be. Maybe it’s as a father, an employee or business owner, as a boyfriend or husband. If you were to be the man you wanted to be, what would you do differently?

Men who have participated in our BetterMen Retreats have come up with N.U.T.s like these:

• I am faithful to my wife.
• Compassion for my family trumps my need to be right.
• I am a risk taker.
• I do what I believe is n the best interest of my children, even if they disagree.
• [etc...]

[link]

So come on guys, I want you to show me your N.U.T.s!

What are your N.U.T.s?

Ladies, you can join in as well...

Warwick Castle dungeons seem to have been taken over by modernist liberals...

Warwick Castle has witnessed some of the darkest, bloodiest and most frightening times in history.

This new experience is set to echo part of the Castle's past, taking you back to 1345, when the town was gripped by the plague.

In true Dungeon style, gore seekers will be greeted by decaying bodies, chanting monks, torture implements, execution and ‘the labyrinth of lost souls’ - a fantastic scary mirror maze. Warwick Castle truly brings history to life!

[link]

Decaying bodies, torture implements, execution, the 'labyrinth of lost souls'. I can take all that but please! No! The Horror! Stop! Don't make me endure the chanting monks!

What the?

I stumbled across this photo of a young girl recently receiving her first communion in Rome...

This photo makes me feel sad because when my little girls receive their first holy communion it won't look like this.

My preference is for receiving communion in this way, receiving on the tongue while kneeling. The Church allows people to receive on the hand while standing and if people want to do so, I have no objections. I simply think it is better to receive on the tongue while kneeling, it is a beautiful expression of what is going on, a clearer symbol and a more reverent gesture.

Officially, the Church has no objection to those who wish to receive kneeling, but in reality there is absolutely no way to do it. I you choose to receive kneeling then you are apparently "drawing attention to oneself rather than allowing all the attention and reverence be focused on the presence of our Blessed Lord in the Eucharist" but if you choose not to kneel then your action is taken as a vote in favour of standing...

I sincerely believe that what would be best for my children would be to receive kneeling, as I did when I was a child, not so very long ago. Not just the first time they receive but every time. I would very much like to do it without drawing undue attention to my actions ot to theirs, it's not mean't to be a statement, it's receiving Holy Communion.

It doesn't seem fair. They are both Catholics, the little girl in the photo and my little girls. They both go to Catholic Churches.

So whats the problem?

[h/t Catholic Rights]

This is good...

Paul wants Christians to have a "responsible" and "adult faith". The words "adult faith" in recent decades have formed a widespread slogan. It is often meant in the sense of the attitude of those who no longer listen to the Church and her Pastors but autonomously choose what they want to believe and not to believe hence a do-it-yourself faith. And it is presented as a "courageous" form of self-expression against the Magisterium of the Church. In fact, however, no courage is needed for this because one may always be certain of public applause.

Rather, courage is needed to adhere to the Church's faith, even if this contradicts the "logic" of the contemporary world. This is the non-conformism of faith which Paul calls an "adult faith". It is the faith that he desires. On the other hand, he describes chasing the winds and trends of the time as infantile.

Thus, being committed to the inviolability of human life from its first instant, thereby radically opposing the principle of violence also precisely in the defence of the most defenceless human creatures is part of an adult faith. It is part of an adult faith to recognize marriage between a man and a woman for the whole of life as the Creator's ordering, newly re-established by Christ. Adult faith does not let itself be carried about here and there by any trend. It opposes the winds of fashion. It knows that these winds are not the breath of the Holy Spirit; it knows that the Spirit of God is expressed and manifested in communion with Jesus Christ.

However, here too Paul does not stop at saying "no", but rather leads us to the great "yes". He describes the mature, truly adult faith positively with the words: "speaking the truth in love" (cf. Eph 4: 15). The new way of thinking, given to us by faith, is first and foremost a turning towards the truth. The power of evil is falsehood. The power of faith, the power of God, is the truth. The truth about the world and about ourselves becomes visible when we look to God. And God makes himself visible to us in the Face of Jesus Christ.

In looking at Christ, we recognize something else: truth and love are inseparable. In God both are inseparably one; it is precisely this that is the essence of God. For Christians, therefore, truth and love go together. Love is the test of truth. We should always measure ourselves anew against this criterion, so that truth may become love and love may make us truthful.

[link]

As you read these words from Bishop Patrick O'Donoghue (until recently, Bishop of Lancaster) keep in mind Chesterton's remark that "Authorities are seldom alarmed like that except when it is too late."

"I suppose if priests see bishops showing disloyalty to the Pope, it is hardly surprising that they in turn should show disloyalty to their bishop. We all know what Jesus said about a divided house."

...

"This cocktail of dissent, disobedience and disloyalty has resulted in what I call 'a conspiracy of silence' amongst groups in the Church. There is no real dialogue or willingness to talk openly and honestly about our differences."

...

"All I did was reiterate the teaching of the Church, but this has been treated as unacceptable and unspeakable. Why?"

...

"countless individual priests, and laity, even bishops, believe they are free to decide what it means to be Catholic for themselves"

...

"For example, we have witnessed a wholesale rejection of the Church's perennial teaching against contraception. This is the litmus test of the acceptance of the obedience in the Church. How many priests support Gaudium et Spes's crystal-clear rejection of contraception, upheld by successive popes - Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI? If we reject their teaching on this matter we are saying as priests that we know better than the successor of Peter! Is this tenable in a priest?"

[link]

The Catholic Church in England and Wales can be neatly divided in to those who think that the above is a statement of what has been obvious for some time and those who history will look upon as fools.

Which one are you?

Saturday evening was the Festival of food and it was the best year yet! It is a fabulous occasion where all the different nationalities within the parish make samples of traditional food and then we get to eat it :o)

This year we began with Italian, then Indian, Polish, Philipeno and English, there was also a BBQ outside. I tried to have a couple of things from each country but they were all so keen for you to try some of everything that I got half way through Poland and thought I would explode. James soldiered on though all the countries (what a hero) and I had a few things from his plate so that I could say I had tried something from every country.

I will be honest, as stuffed as I was there was always room for desert, though this time James and I had it sussed, we took one of everything and then shared it so we got to try a small sample of everything which was great.

There was also music from the various countries playing which was nice, had I know I would have brought some traditional English raucous folk singing! May be next year.

The weather was perfect with the kids playing on the grass, people picnicking outside till late and as you can see above, an opportunity for Fr Massie to talk to his parishioners! As far as I can tell a grand time was had by all.

We think this is lovely...

Nice one, Idiots...

£6m drive to cut teen pregnancies sees them DOUBLE

A multi-million pound initiative to reduce teenage pregnancies more than doubled the number of girls conceiving.

The Government-backed scheme tried to persuade teenage girls not to get pregnant by handing out condoms and teaching them about sex.

But research funded by the Department of Health shows that young women who attended the programme, at a cost of £2,500 each, were 'significantly' more likely to become pregnant than those on other youth programmes who were not given contraception and sex advice.

[link]

Basically kids, condoms are a lie.

Google for condom failure rates, ignore the Catholic websites (they might be biased). Look at governments own Connexions website where it says "No form of contraception is 100% reliable" So how reliable are condoms?

I found a page on the Oxford University website where it says "It seems that the reported rate of condom failure through slippage and breakage is significant." and "it leaves a woman with a chance of pregnancy which may be considered unacceptable".

Then there's Blushing Buyer whose aim is to "provide an easy way to buy products that can sometimes cause embarrassment", they say "For regular condoms, the typical failure rate is about 12%"

You could also Ask Alice who says that "During a year of typical condom use, between 10 and 15 out of 100 sexually active women will become pregnant." Her figures are pretty similar to the aforementioned 12%.

As Alice and Blushing Buyer are both keen to point out, those figures are for "typical use" and condoms are far more effective with "perfect use". As Alice goes on to say "During a year of perfect condom use, that number drops to between 2 and 3 out of 100"

So to be guaranteed one teenage pregnancy per year, you only need ten sexually active "typical" teenage girls or thirty "perfect" ones (with "perfect" boyfriends of course).

If that's the rate for conception which can only happen one or two days a month, what's the rate for sexually transmitted diseases?

So much for "safe sex".

This is a public service announcement...

I'm a big fan of Laurence England, the Catholic blogger in Brighton who is currently jobless, homeless and living out of his car (until the road tax runs out). His "friends" might consider him to be a parasite on society who should get a job but reading his blog I cannot help but be impressed by the love he has and the time he gives for people right on the edge of society. Brighton will be a poorer place when Laurence England gets a job...

Anyway, Laurence was recently scandalised when he attended adoration at parish other than his regular one...

Whenever I have been at Adoration before, it has always been a Priest, dressed in the Sacred Vestments of the Church, who has entered the Sanctuary and unlocked the Tabernacle, with a great sense of awe and reverence, and placed the Host inside the Monstrance to be exposed to the Faithful for adoration.

On this occasion, however, I waited to see a Priest emerge. But he didn't. Then a lay lady got up and walked over into the Sanctuary, unlocked the Tabernacle and performed the duty of the Priest. 'Where is the Priest?' I thought. 'Surely, he would not encourage the lay faithful to touch the Holy of Holies and to be responsible for something which by all accounts is the awesome responsibility of the consecrated Priest?' Yet he was nowhere to be seen.

[link]

Oh Laurence. Dear sweet innocent naive Laurence. I wonder if he still believes in Fr Christmas...

I don't know if it's an abuse for laypeople to expose the blessed sacrament for adoration, but down the road from me there is a parish where the priest not only encourages the lay faithful to unlock the tabernacle and handle the blessed sacrament, but also encourages them to have some readings and then give communion to one another, not a Mass but a "Service of the Word and Holy Communion". You can see them listed in the newsletter.

Is that allowed? My wife was at a training day for Extraordinary Ministers when somebody asked if training would be given on how to run these services. Fr Gerard Robinson (Diocesan MC) answered publicly that no training would be given because they shouldn't be happening.

But they are happening...

Perhaps we should write to the Bishop? He would do something... wouldn't he?

Maybe we would be better of writing to Fr Christmas?

This is what technology was made for...

[h/t Hacked Gadgets]

I'm sure you're all familiar with the Indiana Jones movies, if you're not then you need to stop wasting your time on the internet and get down to a video shop immediately... Okay... The third Indiana Jones film is the Last Crusade and there is a scene at the end of the film when Indy and chums have located the legendary Holy Grail which has the power to give eternal life.

There is a catch. The grail is hidden among many other cups and chalices and a decision must be made about which cup is the true grail. Pick the correct cup and be rewarded with eternal life but pick the wrong cup and die horribly.

The first person to take a guess is the villainous Nazi... he must be some kind of traditionalist because he picks the biggest, goldest, cup he can lay his hands on...

He guesses wrong and if I remember correctly he dies of old age very rapidly (it's very cool). His mistake, it is explained, is that he chose the expensive looking cup. Our hero, Indiana Jones, selects a simple cup. He chooses correctly and is able to save Sean Connery from certain death...

The lesson is simple... Nice chalices (as favoured by traditionalists) lead to death, while plain chalices (as favoured by heroes) lead to life. In 1989 when that film came out it was obviously seen by quite a few liturgists who took the lesson quite literally and as a result our Churches are littered with earthenware communion bowls. Stephen Spielberg has a lot to answer for...

In 2004 the Vatican decided to set the record straight. Redemptionis Sacramentum says that Sacred vessels for containing the Body and Blood of the Lord are to be made from materials which are "truly noble in the common estimation within a given region" so that "honour will be given to the Lord by their use, and all risk of diminishing the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharistic species in the eyes of the faithful will be avoided."

Just in case that's a bit subtle, they spell it out:

Reprobated, therefore, is any practice of using for the celebration of Mass common vessels, or others lacking in quality, or devoid of all artistic merit or which are mere containers, as also other vessels made from glass, earthenware, clay, or other materials that break easily. This norm is to be applied even as regards metals and other materials that easily rust or deteriorate.

[Redemptionis Sacramentum 117]

It's good to see that Bishop Drainey takes this very seriously, last year he visited the parish down the road where they regularly make use of a ceramic chalice. After he left he sent a letter to the parish priest in which he said:

...a new set of chalices might be in order to enhance and add even more dignity to the liturgy.

[link]

That was last November, I remember reading it at the time and thinking how exciting it was that Bishop was willing to take these things seriously. It might be nice if he would make this particular rule sound less like an optional extra "might be in order". No suprise then that eight months later there are no new chalices and the ceramic ones are still in use.

Hey! Perhaps we should write to the Bishop?

Ah yes... The Bishop...

That photo was taken last August, you can clearly see on the altar the Diocesan Earthenware Bowl Collection. These turn up at every big Diocesan Event and for all I know are used in the Cathedral all the time. Why is Bishop Drainey using them? Why doesn't he say something?

At the time it was pointed out to me that he had been Bishop for less than a year, perhaps there had not been time to do anything about it? Perhaps he was working on it?

Perhaps... So let's fast forward a bit to this July, almost a year later, let's see how he's getting on...

A year later and the same earthenware vessles are still in use... how long does it take to smash a few pots?

I am put in mind of the recent comments by the Bishop of Lancaster...

"I suppose if priests see bishops showing disloyalty to the Pope, it is hardly surprising that they in turn should show disloyalty to their bishop. We all know what Jesus said about a divided house."

[link]

How long must we wait in vain?

Credit and Disclaimer: The above photos of Bishop Drainey were both taken from Middlesbrough Diocese Website. I mention this to credit the source but also to counter any suggestion that it was I that put these things on the internet. There is nothing in this blog entry that was not on the internet already.

I just can't believe how "cool" and "with it" the front cover of The Tablet is this week. They are definitely down with the kids...

Rainbow people in a circle around planet earth, it's like the 1960's never ended!

The lovely rainbow people at The Tablet are gushing with praise for Pope Benedict after his recent Encyclical. One of them writes...

This remarkable and intelligent man, now in his eighties, seems to have regained the originality of mind that once made him one of the most innovative voices at Vatican II. Half a century later he still has new things to say, well worth hearing, well worth waiting for. And no stereotype could even begin to describe him.

[link]

Here's a stereotype for you: Ageing hippies getting all carried away with excitement because the Pope said something about global warming while studiously ignoring everything else he's had to say about, like, everything.

Have they even read the Encyclical?

Pope Benedict quotes Evangelium Vitae (When a Pope quotes a Pope it's Pope²) saying...

"a society lacks solid foundations when, on the one hand, it asserts values such as the dignity of the person, justice and peace, but then, on the other hand, radically acts to the contrary by allowing or tolerating a variety of ways in which human life is devalued and violated, especially where it is weak or marginalized."

[link]

Is that not basically the Catholic Church in England and Wales in a nutshell?

We assert "values such as the dignity of the person, justice and peace", oh yes, we're very good at that. Cafod, LiveSimply, Reclaim the Future... Hooray!

But then, on the other hand, "we tolerate a variety of ways in which human life is devalued and violated"...

Archbishop Vincent Nichols with his approval of outrageous sex education materials. Our very own Diocesan Youth Service with it's deafening silence on anything that's not Ubuntu. Most disgustingly of all, Catholic Education Service (Archbishop Vincent Nichols again) with it's arms wide open to welcome Connexions advisors to come in to Catholic schools and help teenagers arrange abortion and contraception without parental knowledge or consent.

I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that the Catholic Church in England and Wales "lacks solid foundations".

Update: Mark points out in the comments (not sure how I missed it) the headline "You can blog but you cannot hide".

Which is funny because while the majority of Catholic blogs are not anonymous at all, the majority of iffy priests and lay pastoral people are very quick to insist that their very public office is a private matter when I blog about their dodgy doings...

... and I did not speak out, because I was not a racist.

Humberside Police (the people who can never find my bike) are now locking people up for "publishing and distributing racially inflammatory material, and possessing racially inflammatory material with a view to distribution."

Leeds Crown Court was told Whittle wrote offensive articles that were then published on the internet by Sheppard.

...

Judge Rodney Grant told the men their material was "abusive and insulting" and had the potential to cause "grave social harm".

He added: "Such offences as these have, by their very nature, the potential to cause grave social harm, particularly in a society such as ours which has, for a number of years now, been multi-racial.

...

"These are serious offences. I can say without any hesitation that I have rarely seen, or had to read or consider, material which is so abusive and insulting... towards racial groups within our own society."

...

"Inciting racial hatred is a crime and one which seems to occur too regularly. This kind of material will not be tolerated as this lengthy investigation shows."

[link]

What happened to "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?

What happened to "Catholics were wrong to lock people up for being heretics?" We are now locking people up for racial heresey.

Clearly these people are nutters and their views are abhorrent, but it's not a huge stretch to contemplate a time when religious views (especially on marriage, homosexuality and abortion) might be considered "abusive and insulting" with the potential to cause "grave social harm".

Scary stuff.

SWINE flu is on the verge of a hideous and unstoppable mutation after contracting a virulent case of Cherie Blair, scientists have warned.

Experts who had predicted the virus was unlikely to mutate, now say that it definitely will and it is going to be disgusting.

Professor Henry Brubaker, of the Institute for Studies, said: "The Cherie virus will attach itself to the swine flu and suck at it like a big, patronising leech that thinks it's better than you.

...

According to Prof Brubaker a virus with the contagiousness of swine flu and the eye-gouging awfulness of Cherie Blair will be 'a bit like the Black Death, if it was obsessed with money and status'.

[link]

Which would be funny, if he Apostleship of the Sea (a fantastic organisation that deserves better) hadn't contracted a serious case of Cherie Blair last week.

 

There used to be an organisation called the "Catholic Marriage Advisory Service" but that name was a bit religious so they re-branded as "Marriage Care".

This week the chief executive of Marriage Care (Terry Prendergast) decided to announce that he doesn't care for marriage very much after all... in fact as far as he is concerned, being married is much the same as not being married.

Terry Prendergast, chief executive of Marriage Care, a diocesan-funded organisation, told Quest, a group for gay Catholics, that married heterosexuals were no better at raising children than anyone else.

"Statistically, children do best in a family where the adult relationship is steady, stable and loving," he was due to say in a speech this weekend. "Note that I stress adult, not married, since there is no evidence that suggests that children do best with heterosexual couples."

...

"It is ironic that the state appears to be much more pastoral and compassionate in its acceptance of what family is. The fact that there are all kinds of benefits available for different family forms, and legal imperatives to support families suggests that the state is even more concerned for families than Church."

He also criticised ideas of the Holy Family that have their roots in "evangelical, Right-wing religious thought".

He said that many families who pray together "then prey on other people through their self-righteousness", and said that abuse is "rampant" in the traditional family, citing the cases of Josef Friztl, who raped his prisoner daughter over a period of years, and Fred and Rosemary West, the serial killers.

Mr Prendergast last year presented Pope Benedict XVI with the English and Welsh bishops' document on marriage, Home is a Holy Place and Marriage Care has its own section in the Catholic Directory.

[link]

Marriage care feature in the Catholic Directory and are also listed on the Middlesbrough Diocese website. We even have a "Marriage Care centre" at the St Bede's Pastoral Centre in York (yeah, that St Bede's Pastoral Centre) and the John Paul Centre in Middlesbrough is also used for Marriage Care. Not to mention that Celebrating Family refer to Marriage Care as a 'Useful link for Family Ministry'.

Did I mention that Marriage Care are funded by the Catholic Dioceses of England and Wales? We are paying this guys wages!

So what happens now?

I suppose now we find out how much our Bishops care about Marriage. Do they care enough to actually do something?

Probably not.

Golden boy Archbishop Vincent Nichols (who can do no wrong, so long as we don't mention Catholic Education) is quoted in the newsletter of the Parish down the road...

Archbishop Nichols wrote a postgraduate thesis on John Fisher which used the phrase: "The Church doesn't need any more golden chalices, it needs golden priests." [Reminds me of something Bishop Terry said after his visitation here!].

[link]

What was it the Bishop said?

...a new set of chalices might be in order to enhance and add even more dignity to the liturgy.

[link]

That's what you call selective hearing...

Starring Andy Serkis...

[link]

Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Well you did ask...

I first saw this aaaaaaages ago on New Liturgical Movement and mean't to blog about it then. I just stumbled across it now, so I will inflict it on you presently.

As if anybody uses the word presently like that anymore...

Comics are rather fashionable among young people and have been for many decades. But let's imagine a world in which people never really went beyond them. No novels, no poetry, no non-fiction. Just comics. Maybe not even words. Just pictures. Who would be surprised when the generation turned out to be illiterate? Let this situation run for 3 or 4 generations, and you would suddenly wake up to a world in which no one could really read and, more shockingly, no one could read teach people to read either.

At this point, you might expect people to suddenly realize what they have done. A major part of the foundation of civilization had been inadvertently smashed. If we could easily do a before/after analysis, we would be shocked more so than if we live in the midst of transition, so that each generation knows less than the previous generation and increasingly there are fewer and fewer people around to even notice that there is a problem.

This, I fear, is pretty much what has happened in the area of Catholic music – not entirely but we have approached that fate and perhaps might be saved from it with massive efforts today. The problem essentially began in the middle 1960s, when the idea of a entertaining and serviceable music came to dominate the impulse to strive for beauty and excellence in liturgy. The protestant Church seems to have had a delayed reaction, plunging into "praise music" by sometime in the early and mid 1970s.

Protestant friends of mine are now despairing. They grew up in a world in which all hymnals were written in four voices, and people in the congregation sang these parts. Regular people, even when they weren't singing in the choir, defined themselves as altos or tenors or basses. Choirs in medium-sized churches had 50-80 members, and they weren't distinguished so much by their ability to read and sing (most everyone could) but rather by their willingness to commit a fantastic amount of time to learning large cantatas for performance during holiday seasons.

Of course Catholics were never that well off—for special historical reasons. Nonetheless, there were singers and readers and people who knew the repertoire and looked to certain ideals.

But now, my protestant friends tell me, they have several generations that have been raised on praise choruses, which might be compared to musical comic books. There is a role for them, to be sure, and no one wants a world without them completely. The problem is that they came to set the standard, and now my friends are panicked. Not only are there fewer and fewer singers left; there are fewer and fewer people around who can teach or play at all.

You can name a thousand factors for this—how convenient to blame the very existence of recorded music—but the most obvious one is rarely stated: the music they embraced as the core repertoire requires no skills and inspires no striving for anything beautiful. When triviality dominates, ideals disappear; the result is a universal dumbing down of aesthetic and then religious culture.

When my friends describe this situation, it is especially painful to realize that Catholics are about 5-10 years "ahead" of them. We can tell them a thing or two about what it is like to worship in Churches were there are only a few musicians for every several hundreds worshipers. They lack ability to sing, the capacity to hit a pitch and hold it, the cognitive understanding of what it means to read notes going up and down, the rudimentary knowledge of rhythm – all of this has been seriously undermined in the course of the decades of relentless artistic decline. Now, it's like living in a world without readers. The great works of literature sit on the shelves and no one knows what to do about them.

Of course one way to deal with this problem is to change the ideals, which then permits us to deny the problem. Who cares about all this old Palestrina stuff anyway? Was it really any good or was it just the best they could do at the time? Wasn't this just music for the elites? Who has time anymore for this stuff anyway? It was fine in age of faith and poverty, but our world of reason and prosperity demands something else entirely. As for chant, that stuff is fine for a world of poverty, sickness, and the Black Death but we live gleaming cities and spend our leisure hours at modern health clubs. Different times call for different music.

But how different are the times really? The externals are different. The internals, to which the liturgy must speak most directly, are the same now as in all times – a universal (everywhere and timeless) faith addressing and accounting for a universal human nature with the assistance of a universal art form, all directed toward universal adoration.

I'm inclined to think that many attacks on the historical treasure of sacred music are really just fancy rationalizations for our generation's laziness and lack of talent capital. Something can be done about this, however. We must first realize that we have a problem. Then we have to set about fixing it.

[link]

We won't be able to fix it of course, until we have a culture that values beauty and as long as we have things like this and this going on I doubt anybody is going to get the idea that beauty is very important.

A while back I wrote a post on the Young Christian Workers and somebody called Elise has left a comment asking for my thoughts on YCW and evangelisation. I'm not sure I have much to add to my previous blog entry, except to re-emphasise that I definitely think that the YCW are a good thing and I hope to see them do well.

I certainly wouldn't argue with the principle that all acts of charity/kindness can be evangelising. This can be in a practical way (those Christians are very kind, Christianity must be a good thing) but also in another sense... if God is love (and He is), then those who grow in love grow in God. Getting together a group of young people to grow together in love of neighbour is getting them together to grow in love of God.

The problem is that simply gathering a group of people together to grow in love of neighbour is not necessarily evangelisation. Here in Hull for many years the local police have been running a project called lifestyle which I took part in when I was at school and which continues to this day. The basic principle is almost indistinguishable (superficially) from YCW. Young people form lifestyle teams and with only a little adult guidance they have to look around (See) their local community and decide on a project (Judge) which they then carry out (Act). The main difference between Lifestyle and YCW is that in Lifestyle the best project wins a trip to Disneyland in Florida. You can see a list of previous lifestyle winners and if you look at 1994 that's the year I (aged 13) visited an old peoples home a couple of times to play board games with the elderly (we didn't win).

Is there any difference at all between YCW and Lifestyle?

Clearly the answer is yes. The Young Christian Workers are Christian, so when they See they look with the eyes of Christ and see things in light of Christian revelation, when they Judge they discern in terms of Christian morality what is right and what is wrong and when they Act they are acting as members of the Body of Christ.. "Christ has no body but yours..."

But what if the Young Christians who are doing the work are not very well formed Christians? What if the adults guiding them are not very well formed Christians? It's not difficult to see a situation arising in which a YCW becomes indistinguishable from a Lifestyle group. I don't think that's what YCW is all about, but in the prevaling secular culture I think there's a good chance of that happening.

If that sort of group is evangelising, then Humberside Police are evangelising. Quick! Somebody call the National Secular Society!

To emphasise again (and still some people will miss it), I do think the YCW are a good thing. The YCW are putting on courses across the country including one in Hull this September to which I will probably be going.

In the proper Christian context I think they can do a great deal of good. I just think in our diocese we probably don't have the proper Christian context, we have a crisis of spiritual deafness and a culture which is unfavourable to vocations.

Yes, that's harsh, but I'm not the only one who thinks so.

For "Protestant" read "Sausage" or "Liberal Catholic"...

1. If a thing is condemned by the Church, but permitted by the Protestant (say, gay marriage) the demand is for an explicit text forbidding it ("Show me where Jesus said one word about not allowing gay marriage! That’s just the Church imposing its purely human ideas on what Jesus came to say.").

2. Conversely, if a thing is allowed by the Church but condemned by the Protestant, the demand is for an explicit text commanding it. So, for instance, we get demands like, “Where in the Bible do you find anyone asking us to pray to dead people? That’s just the Church imposing it’s purely human ideas on what Jesus came to say.”

[link]

Now that you have learned a new word, you may enjoy an excellent comic...

[link]

I'm not entirely sure why more isn't being made of this.

The government are at least pretending to be interested in our views on it's plans to extend sex education down to five year olds. We don't have to take time off work to get on a train and go to a meeting or speak in front of a room full of people or anything like that, we just need to visit a website and fill in a form.

The deadline is 4pm this Friday. It would be a bit on a hypocritical side to not fill in the form and then spend the next few years complaining about the new law and saying (as Joanna puts it) "Ugh! How shocking!!"

So come on guys, spend a few minutes this lunchtime or this evening to let them know what you think.

It can't be any more pointless than writing to a Bishop.

Update: Oh yes it can.

Did anybody out there manage to understand what in the world was going on with that survey? I think maybe it would make sense if I had spent the last few weeks poring over several tedious documents... maybe.

It's funny because it's true...

[Cartoon Source]

Every now and then I bump in to somebody who reads this blog and one of the things they often say is "I agree with what you say". So I say "You should leave comments" and they say "I would, but I can never think of something to say"...

I've read (I forget where) that for every person who leaves a comment somewhere in the region of fifty to ninety people have an opinion but decide not to give it. I'm always curious about what that silent majority are thinking so I've decided to try and find out.

I've added "Yay!" and "Boo!" buttons to every blog entry and comment. They are easy to click (they don't even take you away from the page), anonymous and require no thought beyond "Yay!" or "Boo!". I'm hoping some of you silent lurker people will use them.

This is a bit of a Pandoras box because of course I have no idea how this will effect things. Maybe you will boo me until I am reduced to tears? Maybe the existence of the vote buttons will discourage commenters who are fearful of being judged? Maybe commenters with good things to say will be encouraged by cheering while horrible idiot commenters will be booed away. Maybe nobody will vote and it will all be a massive dissapointment.

Either way, I suppose we're going to find out.

If you are ever feeling a bit down about the Catholic Church in England and Wales, if you ever start to wonder if your Bishop will ever do anything about anything then one way to cheer yourself up is to visit the National Secular Society website where you will discover that the Catholic Church is a terrifyingly well organised power to be reckoned with and that our Bishops are cunning and need keeping a careful eye on lest they sneak more Christianity in to public life. If only it were true...

Anyway, on the National Secular Society website I recently saw this article about a divorced Catholic head teacher who has decided to remarry.

Catholic headteacher: Did he jump or was he pushed?

A headteacher at a Catholic primary school in Sheffield says he is being obliged to quit his job because he plans to remarry.

Michael Cassidy wrote to parents at St Patrick’s Primary at Sheffield Lane Top on the last day of term saying his decision to leave at Christmas “has been taken for me”. It was unclear whether this meant he was required to quit by the local diocese or whether he felt his own Catholic conscience would not permit him to stay. He has been head of the school for four years.

In his letter to the parents, Mr Cassidy wrote: “This is a decision that has been taken for me as a result of the forthcoming change in my personal life which is that I am to remarry in the autumn. As a consequence my position as headteacher is no longer compatible with the conditions and services of my contract. Therefore I have no option but to leave. It goes without saying that leaving St Patrick’s will be very difficult for me as I have become very much part of this special community.”

Parents are now drawing up a petition in protest about Mr Cassidy's departure and are planning a campaign on Facebook.

Mr Cassidy is thought to be divorced and planning to remarry in the autumn. Catholic doctrine holds that a Christian marriage can never be wholly dissolved, and some argue that to marry for a second time cannot be valid.

And it is felt that Catholic headteachers need to be committed to the faith while acting as role models to pupils, staff and the community.

Claire Bolsover, one of the mothers of a pupil at the schools told the Sheffield Star: “I think this policy is disgusting. Mr Cassidy is a fantastic head and both children and parents are really upset. Any school occasion and he’s there, and he knows every child’s name. He has been with a lady for two years and he has decided to remarry. He must have known what the consequences would be, but he has decided to commit himself to his future wife and so sacrifice his job. Would the school prefer him to live in sin? There are a lot of upset and angry parents – we just hope that if enough of us complain we can get this overturned. Mr Cassidy’s capability and dedication to the school should be what is most important.”

Mum-of-two Melissa Lightfoot was quoted as saying: “I had to console both of my children. I had to think which century we were living in and yes, we do live in the 21st century and not the dark ages. Catholic views on marriage and divorce are very strict but if it is going to put our children’s learning in jeopardy then I think it needs re-thinking. I believe that Mr Cassidy’s personal circumstances are not relevant to his job and we would love him to stay.”

John Cape, director of schools for the Hallam Diocese, said “It is a matter of personal choice made by a man of great integrity. As director of schools I will continue to offer pastoral and professional support to him in the decision he has taken.” Mr Cassidy declined to comment.

[link]

What I find interesting about this is the astoundingly bad Catechesis demonstrated by the mum who asks "Would the school prefer him to live in sin?"

People really have no idea what marriage is.

One of the blogs I read (Smashing Magazine) recently shared a load of really cool photos of space. These are the ones I liked the best...

You can see the whole lot here. Which ones did you like?

I agree with you that Damian Thompson has been going a bit far lately even if he did recently link to me (which was nice) and in gratitude for the blog entry you did for me I would like to share with you the following celebration of ethnic diversity...

11 Photos Where Black People Were Awkwardly Photoshopped In or Out

Enjoy.

I think he's planning to send it to the Pope on an iPod...

The film Dogma is not exactly the best place to learn about Catholic theology but it does contain some clear examples of how our culture understands (perhaps I should say misunderstands) Catholicism.

There is a line in the film which pretty much sums up our cultures understanding of the Church's teaching on suicide. In the film, two angels who have been banished from heaven are trying to return and they come up with a plan. To keep it short... they make themselves human by cutting off their wings (like I said, not brilliant theology) and then they get forgiveness by walking through a Cathedral door on the jubilee. Anyway, as they emerge from the Cathedral door with their sins forgiven all they need to do to get back in to heaven is to die.

One of the good guys says (to paraphrase) "Why don't they just kill themselves?" and another replies "Suicide is a mortal sin, if you die with a mortal sin on your soul then you go to Hell".

Want another example? In the opening scenes of Bram Stokers Dracula we learn that the woman Vlad the Impaler loves has killed herself and a not particularly pastorally minded clergyman informs him that because she killed herself she is now doomed to an eternity of pain and torment. Vlad is a bit miffed by this and so he rejects God becomes Dracula.

I have to sympathise with Vlad.

Personally, I find it very difficult to feel anything but sympathy and anguish for a person who takes their own life. It's not like rape or murder is it? That a person should feel such despair and hopelessness that they cannot see any reason to live... Such a person doesn't deserve punishment, such a person deserves a hug.

This Sunday was the "Day for Life" and this year the focus was on suicide and the importance of showing compassion and support toward those who feel tempted to commit/attempt suicide and the families and friends of those who go through with it. As a result, the media is giving us articles like this:

Catholic Church shifts stance on suicides

The Catholic Church today shifted its stance on suicide stating those who kill themselves should be regarded with compassion rather than blamed.

Suicide is still regarded as a sin by the Church but in an attempt to soften its image on the subject a senior cleric said the act now needs to be viewed in the context of mental health.

[The Times]

"An attempt to soften it's image" - is that what they think this is about? The Church has "shifted it's stance" by talking about the context of mental health.

Has the Church "shifted"? I'm not so sure...

St Thomas Aquinas writing his Summa Theologica between 1265 and 1274 (it's a big book) covers the question of circumstances asking..

Should a theologian take note of the circumstances of human acts?

...the theologian considers human acts according as they are found to be good or evil, better or worse: and this diversity depends on circumstances...

...the theologian considers human acts under the aspect of merit and demerit, which is proper to human acts; and for this it is requisite that they be voluntary. Now a human act is deemed to be voluntary or involuntary, according to knowledge or ignorance of circumstances...

...Therefore the theologian has to consider circumstances.

[Summa Theologica (First Part of the Second Part - Question 7)]

It is clear that St Thomas Aquinas writing over 700 years ago was perfectly aware that human acts can be involuntary depending on the circumstances. Elsewhere he answers several questions about what it means for a thing to be voluntary...

...the word "voluntary" implies that their movements and acts are from their own inclination...

..."voluntary acts lead to praise and blame." But neither praise nor blame is due to the acts of irrational minds...

..."The involuntary act deserves mercy or indulgence, and is done with regret."...

[Summa Theologica (First Part of the Second Part - Question 6)]

In other words, Catholic theologians have known for centuries that a person cannot be blamed for an act if they are not voluntarily, in full knowledge of what they are doing, choosing to do it. They call this "being culpable". Every time you hear the Catholic Church condemn anything you should imagine a little asterisk and some small print...

^*Only if the person is culpable

What is happening here is not that the Church has changed her teaching, but that advances in medical science and psychology have revealed that people with mental illnesses are not necessarily culpable for their actions.

So how can you tell if somebody is culpable? Short answer: You don't.

I think we need to get away from the idea that Christian morality is a cheat sheet for weighing and measuring people in order to identify if they are good or evil. It isn't. Christian morality is for measuring your own actions (preferably before you do them).

You do not know what is going on in another man's heart, but you surely know what is going on in your own.

I always thought Robert Colquhoun was a nice guy, but this time he has gone too far...

One day, a son was playing computer games for hours on a beautiful sunny day. His father came in and encouraged him to do something constructive with his time, but he refused, insisted on getting his own way and playing whim to his fancies and addictions with another long session of super Mario kart.

Later that evening, the father decided to make some brownies. He poured in the chocolate into the pan along with some flour and all the other ingredients. Last of all he went outside and picked up some dog poo and placed it in the pan along with everything else. The son was horrified and exclaimed, “What on earth are you doing! You can’t put dog poo in the brownies, it’ll ruin the whole pan!”

But the father insisted, saying that it would all be fine and that it would not contaminate all the food. Finally he said to his son, “If filling your mind with junk isn’t a problem, what’s wrong with filling your body with junk too?”

[link]

Robert... let me explain: MarioKart is not junk.

MarioKart is a multiplayer game. Maybe the father in your story should spend less time playing with dog poo and a bit more time spending quality time with his son on MarioKart.

Or can he not hack an environment where victory is determined by ones ability to develop a strategy, make quick decisions and stay calm when things get tense? Is he one of those "men" who prefers to drag his son outside to play sports that he will always win because he is bigger and stronger?

If MarioKart is junk, then Chess is junk. Both acheive absolutely nothing in practical terms and benefit the players in ways that can only be tenuously linked to real life activities.

Now if you had done a blog entry about Final Fantasy that would have been another matter...

Update: When I wrote this blog entry I was feeling very happy and lighthearted and tongue in cheek and thought I was doing some kind of hilarious dead pan comedy by being terribly serious about something so minor.

Having read it back, it occurs to me that it sounds very serious and angry. Which was not my original intention.

It's not like he insulted Zelda...

Well, the Archbishop Vincent Nichols got a mixed response. Lots of yays! Lots of boos!

Hopefull you will like this rap (not by me) a bit better...

If you like that...

Enjoy yourself some more typeface rap.

Ella and I have now been married for four years.

What can I say?

I liked it. I thought it was nice.

Today I have the day off work and we are going to dump the sproglets at grandmas before going to see Harry Potter and (weather permitting) flying a kite.

In this weeks Catholic Herald there is an interview with Archbishop Vincent Nichols. One of the questions asked was "Does it really matter therefore whether we receive him in a Mass celebrated in the ordinary form or in the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite?" to which the Archbishop rightly responded that "frankly the form of the Mass doesn't matter in comparison to that mystery which it provides."

He then went on to say this...

...most troubling of all to my mind is the mindset that somebody might get caught into, because perhaps they don't like some aspect of how the Mass is being celebrated or the music that's been chosen or something, that they begin to turn their back on the Church's ordinary pattern of prayer, the ordinary form of the Mass and say: "I can't accept that."

That's really quite serious, because if they can't accept that then they are inexorably distancing themselves from the Church.

[Catholic Herald]

Here's what's "really quite serious"...

In every diocese, in hundreds of parishes across the country, every Sunday there are priests who "turn their back on the Church's ordinary pattern of prayer".

They "turn their back on the Church's ordinary pattern of prayer" when they change the words of the prayers at Mass to conform with their own personal interpretation and ideology. They "turn their back on the Church's ordinary pattern of prayer" when they actively encourage laypeople to take part in those parts of the Mass normally reserved for the priest like the Per Ipsum. They "turn their back on the Church's ordinary pattern of prayer" when they allow it to become the norm that the propers of the Mass are something most people barely even know exists let alone something actually heard and sung. They "turn their back on the Church's ordinary pattern of prayer" when they discourage use of the sacrament of confession. They "turn their back on the Church's ordinary pattern of prayer" when they break the bread at the line "he broke the bread" instead of waiting for the proper time. They "turn their back on the Church's ordinary pattern of prayer" each and every time they choose to modify the liturgy according to their own whim and fancy.

More seriously than that though are the Bishops who "turn their back on the Church's ordinary pattern of prayer" when they turn a blind eye to the priests they know to be doing the above. When they respond to letters from laypeople with words of assurance but do absolutely nothing of substance and leave such priests in place for years and years to wreak untold harm on their congregations. They "turn their back on the Church's ordinary pattern of prayer" when they take part in the abuses themselves!

But the biggest kick in the teeth?

The Archbishop who after years of silent assent with the above turns around now and has a go at laypeople who quite understandably after years of being treated like turds say something like "to hell with it, let's just go to a traditional Church where they do things properly"

I am definitely most at home with the ordinary form of the Mass but there are many things in the Masses as celebrated in our Diocese to which I have to say "I can't accept that" or to use the official language: "the perpetration of liturgical abuses has become almost habitual, a fact which obviously cannot be allowed and must cease" (RS 4)

It is not that I "don't like some aspect of how the Mass is being celebrated or the music that's been chosen or something" as though this is a matter of personal preference. It is not a matter of personal preference, "The Mystery of the Eucharist “is too great for anyone to permit himself to treat it according to his own whim. (RS 11)

Who is turning their back on the Church's ordinary pattern of prayer?

Look no further than our very own Bishops.

That dream within a dream...

[link]

Speaking of computer games, I used to play them a lot but these days I never have time. I used to play any old rubbish just to keep myself occupied but these days I am a more discerning player. If a game is not really really good, I just abandon it.

That means I'm not so interested in ye olde first person shooter as I once was. They get a bit samey after a while. But I am loving the more recent phenomena of small indie game developers coming out with short games based on interesting concepts.

Today I have been playing one which is excellent and free (if it wasn't free, I wouldn't be playing it). The object of the game is to get rid of the red blocks but keep the green ones. Simple eh?

I finished all 45 levels with 'par' and in bonus mode in about two hours.

Play Red Remover