More like the intelligence of an adult cow...

On the other hand you might say, even when a human embryo develops a nervous system and develops the capacity to perhaps suffer, it's still a much smaller nervous system than the nervous system of an adult cow and so, what about balancing the suffering of a human embryo against the suffering of an adult cow when it's being slaughtered for meat.

Give it five minutes and he'll be ranting and raving that atheists are just as capable of being good moral people as anybody else. Yeah, that's really good that is - the old "who has the biggest nervous system" contest.

Because cows and human beings are same obviously.

Oh wait...

An absolutist moralist would say "well humans are just plain special and cows are not human so they don't deserve the same moral consideration" but a scientist might come along and say "well, what do you mean by that? I mean we are after all, all evolved, we're all cousins, at what point would you, at what point in the evolution of, since we know evolution is a fact, at what point in the evolution of humans would you suddenly draw the line and say "right, from now on they are all human and before that they're not"

The thing about atheism is that means cows, monkeys, fish, people etc are all just machines made of meat. This means moral decisions can only be based on "what causes the least suffering?" which is why all the main arguments in favour of abortion center around the suffering that may happen if the baby is allowed to be born.

In that context, I can sort of understand why you might say it's worse to hurt a meat machine with a lot of nerves. You will cause more suffering.

What I can't understand is why they think it's wrong to cause suffering in the first place.

Coming soon to a parish not near me. Around here the Mass isn't so much a sacrifice as something that has been sacrificed to the gods of the community spirit and the shared meal.

... I would agree with you that we need to 're-sacrificialise', in your invented but useful word, our common or garden usage of the rite of Paul VI - if not, in some respects, the rite itself.

But to my mind the single greatest contribution we can make to that end is to press - judiciously and with respect - for the celebration of the Mass versus orientem, the Liturgy 'turned towards the Lord'. The celebrant stands ministerially in the place of Christ the High Priest. Appropriately, since our Great High Priest is Mediator between God and men, the Church's priest, during the Liturgy of the Sacrifice - after, that is, the litany-like moment of the Bidding Prayers - turns at key moments to the body of the faithful, engaging their response ('active' participation means engaged participation, not jumping up and down) to the sacred action of which he is protagonist.

Essentially, however, in the celebration of the Sacrifice the ministerial priest is turned - always in spiritual attitude if, in our current practice, seldom in empirical fact - not to face the people but, with the beloved Son, to face the Father, to whom the Oblation of praise and thanksgiving, propitiation and supplication is addressed. Your desire for a clearer indication of the change in level as we move from the Liturgy of the Word to the Liturgy of the Sacrifice would be well met by the change of direction whereby the priest at that shift in gear turns from facing the people to facing the Father.

[link]

I suppose it comes down to whether we want a Mass like this:

Or more like this:

I know which I would prefer...

I will begin this blog entry with a simple theological question:

Who is both human and divine?

If you answered "Jesus" then you don't win a prize because it's a very easy question and I don't have any prizes. Perhaps you could pause for a moment to enjoy the feeling of smug self-satisfaction that comes with knowing how to tie your own shoelaces.

Now, a trickier question... Who is being spoken about here:

To be tormented by restlessness is one of the many frustrating consequences of being both human and divine at the same time!

If you answered "Jesus" then you are wrong.

But... but...

Who else is both human and divine?

 

Well...?

 

 

You are!

 

 

Honestly?

 

Well, I didn't say it. That was written in The Tablet last July by a certain Fr Daniel O'Leary, a priest "in good standing" of Leeds Diocese. According to Fr O'Leary, all of us are human and divine. You can read the full article (warning, PDF) here.

Why do I mention this now? Well, yesterday the Diocese of Middlesbrough hosted an "Inspirational Study Day for Lay Ministers of the Word". Personally, I can't use the word "inspirational" with a straight face these days but I'm not laughing because for this Inspirational Study Day the speaker is none other than Fr Daniel O'Leary.

For some reason this particular Inspirational Study Day isn't listed on the Middlesbrough Diocese website. Maybe they are hoping nobody will notice? I would certainly want to keep it quiet. An earlier article of his in The Tablet was described as follows...

"To be excessively scrupulous in trying to eliminate all sin is to miss the point of Christ's example and, as one priest finds, too much virtue can even hurt you"

[link]

So we are divine and if we try to avoid sin then we are missing the point.

Maybe some people find that inspirational?

A priest in Leeds Diocese (I'll keep him anonymous) writes...

Fr. Donal O’Leary (as his name used to be) is probably a material heretic; I remember arguing with him about the sacraments at a deanery conference. He believed the sacraments were ceremonies celebrating what is already there in us, rather than an infusion of grace from God.

Me? I saved my parish £10 and went to a youth day instead.

Increasingly, one of the great things about going to youth days is meeting other Catholic parents. One lady we met has sent me a photo of an awesome christianified halloween pumpkin and some writing to go with it. Since I'm a nice guy, instead of telling her to start her own blog (she should) I am reproducing it here for you to enjoy.

Shedding some light on Halloween

We had great fun celebrating the Light side of Haloween.

Dressing up as a saint can be more exciting and just as colourful as the tacky, ghoulish stuff sold by even the better high street shops this year.

A 'know your saints' family dinner with a quiz element. Each person has an item by their plate, e.g. St Joseph a hammer, more difficult ones for the adults. Also, suggesting wearing something orange, or pumpkin-coloured, makes most people dig through their wardrobe.

Visiting trick or treaters tolerate a bit of catechesis on the real meaning of the word Haloween, especially if they receive the usual treat!

Combining Halloween with a Thanksgiving theme, you have an interesting meal using the flesh of the pumpkin.

Pumpkin soup is lovely if you get it right; last year I slipped with the chilli!

Pompoenpitten...Dutch for pumpkin seed, also the name of a lovely bread made with pumpkin seeds.

What do you do?

I'm interested in everybody's thoughts on the whole halloween thing. On the one hand, the whole "let's not encourage our kids to cavort with evil" thing makes a lot of sense. On the other hand... gargoyles. We Christians have a history of revelling in the grotesque.

Both/and?

Like the lady said... What do you do?

This made me smile on Catholic Dads today.

Nobody’s going to come interrupt our services to take pictures of our statues. Unless we buy some.

[link]

They have that problem in Middlesbrough Cathedral...

Interesting news from the New Liturigcal Movement...

You have to know the back story to understand why the Vatican's change of policy on guest choirs is so important. For years, there has been a revolving door operating with regard to St. Peter's concerning guest choirs. Some have been great. Many have not been. Some have offered deeply regrettable performances.

Who was running the show? It almost seemed as if the Vatican lost control over this. It became more of a tourism project than a liturgical one. This was a tragedy that had to be addressed.

Sounds familiar. So what has been done?

New Norms...

"The liturgy is celebrated in the Latin language, according to the Roman Rite. Gregorian chant has first place. The guest choir is expected to chant the Ordinary of Holy Mass in alternation with the Musical Chapel of the Basilica."

There is even a playlist...

Sundays of Advent: Missa XVII Credo IV
Sundays of Christmas: Missa IX Credo IV
Sundays of Lent: Missa XVII Credo IV
Sundays of Easter: Missa I Credo III
Sundays of Ordinary Time: Missa XI Credo I
Feasts of Ordinary Time: Missa VIII Credo III
Feasts of the B.V. Mary: Missa IX Credo IV
Feasts of the Apostles: Missa IV Credo III

You can get the full story at the New Liturgical Movement blog.

Inspired by Madame Evangelista and me of all people (James the terrible blogger) Berenike has made the excellent suggestion that we all say something nice about a priest.

Whereas I think my experience, if broader than that of most people, is probably typical: a couple of well-meaning careerites, (and a friend knew one real manipulative sh*t) and many many kind, generous, sensible, hard-working and prayerful men of all kinds, from thug to aesthete, from monk to bon viveur. I have received so many kindnesses and so many graces from these men. It would be good if the cesspit of the internet had more Posts In Praise of Priests. Appreciations of individuals, by name, if it would not cause them embarassment or difficulty.

[link]

I've done mine in which I wrote about Fr Massie and all the great stuff he does especially with youth and now I think we should turn this in to a meme.

So...

I think I will choose Kate, Bones and Colquhoun.

The rules are simple. Say something nice about a priest and then nominate three blogs to pass it on.

Go! Go! Go!

It comes as no surprise but that makes it all the worse that a parent has to fight such responses!

But Dr F, as he is known for legal reasons, told the court Baby RB was living a "burdensome existence".

[Full article]

Burdensome to who? The parents who want him?

...and yay for pants!

(I think he means trousers...)

In the immortal words of the mighty Shea... Check it thou out!

(I think that means look at it...)

This is St Mary's College in Hull which is the Catholic Secondary School where I went to school...

This is the European Court of Human Rights...

This is the latest news...

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled against the use of crucifixes in classrooms in Italy.

It said the practice violated the right of parents to educate their children as they saw fit, and ran counter to the child's right to freedom of religion.

[link]

It hasn't happened today, but it seems increasingly likely that it will happen that one day the European Court of Human Rights or the UK Government will inform St Mary's College that they must remove crucifixes from all their classrooms.

I don't think it's unreasonable for the Catholics who part fund this school to ask: "In such a situation, would the management at St Mary's College be willing to break the law in order to uphold the Catholic faith?" Would there be any Bishops willing to support them? What would CES say?

Unfortunately, I think we already know what the answer is.

I've just been on the phone with a lady from The Times...

Talking about this.

I can hear the champagne corks popping over at CES as we speak...

The last person on earth that I want to have a go at right now is Paul Tully, the general secretary of SPUC. The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. SPUC are on the front lines in the fight against the culture of death and while Bishops across England and Wales can be found twiddling their thumbs and shifting awkwardly in their seats, SPUC is taking part in legal preceedings and campaigning vigorously. Send SPUC some money today.

I also know how difficult and stressful it can be to speak to the media and how easy it is to make a slip of the tongue.

But..

I think on this point that it is really important that we get our language right.

The government is removing the right of parents to protect their children from the explicit promotion of abortion and sexual health interventions in the latter stages.

[link]

Wrong.

The government is not removing the right of parents. This right is inalienable. It cannot be removed.

What the government is doing is preventing parents from excercising that right.

I think this is important because if we start talking as though the government has the ability to grant/revoke rights then it's no suprise when they take us up on the offer.

"In favor" of removing parents rights to teach their own children about sex education in the way they deem best we have Mary Bousted, General Secretary of the Assosiation of Teachders and Lecturers.

For many teenagers the very idea of parental sexual activity is repugnant. With one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in Europe, whatever we are doing at the moment we are not doing well.

"Against" we have James Preece, Catholic Blogger and father of two.

What the Catholic Church is against is getting children in a classroom and teaching them about sex in a values-free environment. It is a parental right and duty to impart information about sex.

The Times. Friday November 6th 2009. Page 26.

We are pleased...

Is there anything they wouldn't be pleased about?

You think I'm joking?

Here's an excerpt from the actual Catholic Education Services press release...

CESEW responds to proposals relating to Sex and Relationships Education and parental rights

Whilst disappointed that legal encumbrances mean that a blanket right of withdrawal can no longer apply, we are pleased that the Government has recognised that the right of withdrawal in formative years is most critical and is therefore providing for the ability of parents to opt-out of SRE up to the age of 15.

CESEW will continue to firmly uphold the position that parental rights remain vital, particularly but not exclusively, in those most formative and critical years up until the age of 15.

[link]

I wonder if Archbishop Nichols has anything to say on the matter?

Thought not.

Parents. Betrayed. Again.

Three weeks ago the website administrator for Cardinal Newman's Canonisation at Birmingham Oratory sent me an email asking me to draw attention to an article on the Newman Cause website. I meant to blog about it, but unfortunately it got buried in my email and was forgotten.

Ella reminded me about it today and it occurs to me that this is quite relevant right now what with the whole government forcing sex education on fifteen year olds thing...

Without intellectual integrity, education will degenerate into social engineering. Without conscience and the Faith, in Professor MacIntyre’s words, ‘even the best university education may result in a peculiarly dangerous form of bad character, that in which the cultivation of the mind, independently of religion’ makes conscience degenerate into ‘mere self-respect’.

These twin dangers have an obvious bearing on contemporary educational dogmas, especially perhaps on the State’s vision of education in human relationships and sexuality. Both intellectually and morally the Church’s vocation in education is to oppose such distortions.

Intellectually, as MacIntyre shows, Newman’s understanding of education departs radically from the politically-motivated model currently in vogue. For Newman, MacIntyre explains, ‘the aim of … education is not to fit students for this or that particular profession or career, to equip them with theory that will later on find useful applications to this or that form of practice. It is to transform their minds, so that the student becomes a different kind of individual, one able to engage fruitfully in conversation and debate, one who has a capacity for exercising judgement, for bringing insights and arguments from a variety of disciplines to bear on particular complex issues’ (pp. 147-48). Independence of mind, rather than compliance with socio-economic expectations, is the goal of education.

[link]

This is apparently what a million pounds looks like in £5 notes...

[image source]

I only mention it, because if you happen to see any of those lying around you might want to send them to the Diocese of Middlesbrough who may be needing a few of them soon.

Catholic Church reluctant to accept its responsibility for Britain’s biggest child abuse case so far

The Middlesbrough Diocese of the Catholic Church was told by a High Court judge this week that it was responsible for a children’s home that was the centre of a large-scale abuse scandal. The diocese now faces a potential £8m compensation bill.

The abuse claims centred on the St William’s Community Home in Market Weighton, East Yorkshire. More than 140 former residents filed claims of physical and sexual abuse but it was unclear who was responsible for the home – whether it was the Middlesbrough diocese or the De La Salle Brothers, an order of lay teachers.

The case concerns alleged systematic abuse of children at the care home from 1960 until 1992 when it closed. St William’s took emotionally and behaviourally disturbed boys, aged 10 to 16, referred by councils largely from Yorkshire and the North East.

...

Judge Simon Hawkesworth QC ruled at the High Court in Leeds that the claims should be made against the diocese, and it opens the way for the biggest compensation pay outs from the Church that this country has ever seen. It is the culmination of a six year battle in which the diocese has tried every legal trick to delay the issue and try to evade responsibility. The Church still has the option of making a further appeal — claiming that De La Salle should be liable — which would delay matters for at least another year.

Solicitor for the claimants, David Greenwood, said: “It has been a long battle with the organisations responsible for the home. They have used every argument possible to resist the case and I am hopeful that the Middlesbrough Catholic diocese will consider settling the cases now."

[link]

Where is the Diocese of Middlesbrough going to find £8m? Church closures and sell offs is my guess. It's desperately frustrating for me as a lay Catholic to contemplate the fact that my Church might be sold off and all our efforts destroyed because of events somewhere else fourty years ago. It doesn't seem fair, but then, it doesn't seem fair that young boys were abused either so what right have we to complain? Life isn't fair.

What I can complain about is the present.

Why am I learning about this from the National Secular Society? If there were no such thing as the National Secular Society would I be learning about it at all? We hear all this stuff about lay involvement and "empowering" laypeople but it's smoke and mirrors. How many laypeople in our diocese know that they are liable for the biggest child abuse case in this country so far? Most of the laity I speak to are under the impression that these things happen somewhere else. America, Ireland, London... but not here.

It's hard to imagine an article about this in the Middlesbrough Catholic Voice. That magical fairy land where the sun always shines, why would the diocese publish information that makes it look bad?

Authenticity? Honesty? Openness?

Heh!

In keeping this sort of thing quiet, in burying the information away and doing their best to make sure the people in the pews don't know anything about it the Diocese are effectively maintaining the same strategy that got us in this mess: They are, in a sense, covering up child abuse. They are not hiding it from the police, they are hiding it from their own laypeople.

What worries me is that this is the cultural norm within the Church - to bury bad news and it's not healthy because it gives us a kind of moral leprosy, we hurt ourselves but we cannot feel the pain so we keep on doing it.

The phenomenon is occuring today in Catholic Education where bad news is continally buried by the likes of CES so that every time the government forces something which is contrary to Catholic teaching the CES bury it away and everybody thinks there is no crisis in Catholic schools, it's happening in Catholic Youth Work where everybody pretends that Reclaim the Future wasn't the product of the Youth Work community and that there is definitely nobody out there with funny ideas and it happens in liturgical matters where Bishops would rather pretend that Fr X never does anything wrong than announce publicly that Y shouldn't be happening.

Until we fix this fundamental cultural problem within the Church it is very difficult to trust anybody.

Until we have openness, it is difficult to see how our children can be safe. Perhaps they are not in danger of paedophiles anymore (child protection is now a top priority) but they are in grave danger of hearing dodgy teaching and witnessing dodgy liturgy and we all have to pretend that's not true.

People wonder how child abuse was able to happen within the Church for so long without anybody in authority doing anything about it. I don't wonder. They were just following standard procedure and perpetuating a culture which is favourable to abuse.

A culture which continues to exist today.

National Youth Sunday last year...

National Youth Sunday this year...

Score one for the blogs!

I haven't written a blog entry this morning because I spent ten minutes watching a very rare full colour video of London in 1927 and haven't read any news or blogs so for all I know there's been some event of great significance this morning and I've not said anything about it.

Worth it though. I do like history.

I'm just a bloke with a blog, so I'm not entirely sure why these things keep happening, but they do.

Earlier this year Bishop Drainey wrote in a pastoral letter...

I would say that the secular and spiritual climate generated by our culture is not favourable to these vocations, nor do they nurture a free and mature response to the call. Here I am not just talking about the wider society; I am talking about the Church, and the particular Church in this diocese of Middlesbrough.

Those are strong words so I sent an email to the Catholic Herald asking if they wanted a short article about the Bishop who criticised the culture in his own diocese (usually, Bishops are very careful to explain that everything is wonderful)

The Catholic Herald didn't want my short article, they wanted more. They asked if I would do a long Q&A interview with Bishop Drainey and so I asked Bishop Drainey if he would be willing to be interviewed. He very kindly said yes.

So, in three weeks I will be interviewing the Bishop of Middlesbrough for the Catholic Herald just in time for his second anniversary of being our Bishop.

This is where you come in - I have a great long list of things to ask (some of which I won't ask because I'm too nice) but I don't want to miss anything. So, if you have a question you would like me to put to the Bishop, let me know.

I took the afternoon off work today to acompany Ella to the hospital for an appointment. Nothing serious - she's been having trouble with her hips since she had Joanne and has been seeing a physio who is very good.

What Ella really needs is one of these...

Thanks to Jimmy Akin.

The National Youth Sunday materials this year are a lot better than last year but there are still some low points. I don't know about you, but every time I see a sight like this my heart sinks...

Yes. Very clever. I see what you did there. You got some bread and you broke it. Now all we need is a bottle of Jacob's Creek and we're all set.

My heart sinks even more when I see novelty experimental prayer suggestions...

1. Eat and pray

Based on part of the WYD theme: “...the living God” (1 Tim 4:10)

You will need

• Lectionary open at Christ the King (B), or a Bible open at John’s Gospel, chapter 18
• Bread, grapes, chocolate, jelly babies etc.

Preparation

Place the book and the food close to each other.

Explanation

Simply ask the young people to eat slowly whilst reading the word of God. This is a good way to form an association - each time they eat that food again they will remember the word of God.

If there are no allergy issues in your group, chocolate is a good choice because it melts slowly in the mouth.

[pdf]

What bothers me about this is the attitude that prayer with young people has to take the form of a novelty activity that somehow hints in the direction of a religious experience but doesn't explicitly consist of, you know, actually praying.

It should really be called "Eat and read" because nowhere in the instructions does it say anything about prayer. Yes, I know, reading the scriptures can be a form of prayer but that in itself needs to be explained and it isn't.

How does it make things inclusive and straight forward to encourage young people to pray in such a way that they will only understand it as prayer if they already know about it beforehand?

It's a bit late in the day (11pm rather than 11am) but anyway...

[image source]

A nice bit of Chesterton. A fable for our time...

Suppose that a great commotion arises in the street about something, let us say a lamp-post, which many influential persons desire to pull down. A grey-clad monk, who is the spirit of the Middle Ages, is approached upon the matter, and begins to say, in the arid manner of the Schoolmen, “Let us first of all consider, my brethren, the value of Light. If Light be in itself good–” At this point he is somewhat excusably knocked down. All the people make a rush for the lamp-post, the lamp-post is down in ten minutes, and they go about congratulating each other on their unmediaeval practicality. But as things go on they do not work out so easily. Some people have pulled the lamp-post down because they wanted the electric light; some because they wanted old iron; some because they wanted darkness, because their deeds were evil. Some thought it not enough of a lamp-post, some too much; some acted because they wanted to smash municipal machinery; some because they wanted to smash something. And there is war in the night, no man knowing whom he strikes. So, gradually and inevitably, to-day, to-morrow, or the next day, there comes back the conviction that the monk was right after all, and that all depends on what is the philosophy of Light. Only what we might have discussed under the gas-lamp, we now must discuss in the dark.

[link]

Yesterday was the feast of St Martin who was a junior officer in the Roman army. He was interested in Christianity, gave freely to the poor and prayed etc. but did not feel compelled to make the step and be baptised.

One cold night as he was walking he passed a beggar and saw how cold he was so he cut his cloak in half with his sword (so he was still wearing regulation uniform) and gave half to the beggar. That night the beggar appeared to St Martin in a dream but as Christ wearing half the cloak. Christ reminded St Martin "when I was naked you clothed me...". St Martin became baptised and leftthe army when his term of duty was over. He founded a small monastic community and wen on to become Bishop of Tours.

In England Martinmas day became the day when beasts were slaughtered to be stored for the winter months and was a great feast - we did not roast an oxen but did celebrate by having beef stew last night.

It is also tradidtional to do good works or e.g. hold a jumble sale on this day - our parish has theirs tomorrow but I think it may be a coincidence :o)

In France and Germany it is traditional to make lantens prepring again for the coming winter. Though I got the paper out Leona and I ran out of time to make our lanten, maybe next year :o)

Well, some people find this blog horrific...

The source? B3ta of course!

Where else?

I can't imagine there are many people who read this blog and do not know by now that the government has accepted all the major recommendations of the latest report from the Teenage Pregnancy Advisory Group.

I can't imagine any of you are suprised to find that this includes...

State clearly that all schools including faith schools must teach all aspects of SRE within the context of relationships in an anti-discriminatory way; contraception, abortion and homosexuality are all legal in this country and therefore all children and young people should be able to learn the correct facts.

Make explicit links to young people's advisory services and provision of contraception and sexual health services and demonstrate this by teaching young people how to access services.

The removal of the restriction on promoting condom use before the 9pm watershed.

I can't imagine any of you are suprised to hear that this all happened two days ago and so far the response from the Bishops Conference has been...

 

You could have predicted that because it's exactly the same thing they said that last five hundred times the government attacked the rights of Catholic families.

In fact, it hardly seems worth blogging since you know it all already.

[Image Source]

I received this email over the weekend from another young parent...

Dear James,

I had chance to ask a bishop about bishop policy with regard to Catholic schools. He says they are speaking in unity and acting in conformity with the teaching of the Church.

However, the full horror of being a Catholic parent of a young family on limited income really hit home when he said Catholic schools are largely run on state money (i.e. our taxes), so we have to expect to tow the government line.

Eactly what politics they are playing is beyond me, but the formation of souls is not the main priority.

The schools are like ships taken over by pirates, but still flying friendly flags.

Parent of a young family

I think that's a fair assessment.

I can't help thinking the world would be a better place if all those involved in the liturgy were invited to launch an anvil 200ft in the air.

Anybody who said "What's the point?" would fail the test.

The sort of priest who decides, for example, not to have incense any more, would be caught out by this test and sent to a re-education camp where he would be made to play with matches and use a big knife to sharpen sticks.

You know, man stuff.

The poster in our church for National Youth Sunday in our diocese lists three workshops. Prayer with Jane Cook, Drama with David Barwick and something to do with CAFOD.

The diocesan website also lists three workshops but something is different. David Barwick is gone, replaced with somebody called Daniel Boyes.

Then the reality dawns.

Could it be that they don't know the names of their own employees?

The book review I wrote recently for Faith Magazine is now online...

GK Chesterton and the Romance of Orthodoxy: The Making of GKC 1874-1908

Around a hundred years ago The Times newspaper invited prominent authors of the time to submit articles under the title "What's wrong with the world?" GK Chesterton's response was as short as it was profound. "Dear Sirs," he wrote "I am". In reviewing this book it is tempting to employ a similar, albeit less metaphysical device: "Dear Sirs, Buy this book". I cannot leave things there. Not least because a hundred years later the use of "Dear Sirs" is likely to elicit a chorus of feminist outrage which compels me to add that any madams reading this would do well to buy this book as well (I'm sure that helped).

Reading Chesterton is a bit like watching Star Wars. Not those terrible new ones with the computer generated bunny but the original ones. Don't worry, I'm not about to go off on some tedious exposition about the force. What I mean is simply that the great works of Chesterton, books like Heretics, Orthodoxy and The Everlasting Man leave upon the reader the impression that they have joined the story as it draws to its conclusion or has already ended. Chesterton writes as a man who has been on a long journey. "There are two ways of getting home" he writes, "and one of them is to stay there. The other is to walk round the whole world till we come back to the same place".

The majority of Chesterton's best apologetic writing begins with his arrival at the place his journey finally came to an end, that is with Christian orthodoxy "as understood by everybody calling himself Christian until a very short time ago". He writes as a man who seems to come out of nowhere, as though he sprang into the world a fully formed thirty-four year old Catholic author and genius. The very idea that he might have been born or had parents seems almost absurd, like the idea of one's grandparents having once been babies. Yet, just as the original Star Wars films gave us a tantalising glimpse into the history of the main characters, so Chesterton leaves us in no doubt that his own childhood was of immense importance to the development of his ideas. Chesterton's emphasis on the importance of the nursery to his personal growth is surpassed only by how little he tells us about what he actually did there, or how he came to travel from the nursery to fame and his new found faith.

For fans of Chesterton, William Oddie's book Chesterton and the Romance of Orthodoxy is the long awaited prequel. Here thankfully, Chesterton and Star Wars part company. Unlike the rather disappointing Star Wars prequels, this book should be a delight to existing fans of Chesterton and newcomers alike. Oddie tells the story of the man from childhood to his life as a young adult, his marriage and emergence on to the public stage right through to the publication of Orthodoxy in 1908. This is not simply a novelization of a man's life. Often with books of this kind fanciful statements are made and we have only the author's word that they are true, but William Oddie has gone to remarkable lengths to research every aspect of Chesterton's life. We are treated to lengthy quotations from primary sources including eyewitness descriptions of the family home, unfinished stories Chesterton wrote as a very young child, a diary Chesterton kept as a boy and school report cards, right through to accounts of his wedding day and letters he wrote to his wife.

It would be a mistake though to think of this book as merely the story of the man. It is primarily the story of his ideas. Quoting extensively from Chesterton's poems, letters and articles (many previously unpublished) William Oddie guides us skilfully through the development of Chesterton's ideas, from the anti-clerical pessimism of his youth to his gradual drift towards orthodoxy and eventual conversion to Roman Catholicism. It is a delight to discover ideas in situ that are referred back to in his later works and to be shown the steps that led between them.

All in all this is a practical, well written, highly accessible book that belongs in the hands of everybody who has ever enjoyed the writing of Gilbert Keith Chesterton.

James Preece
Hull

A friend writes...

Hi James,

A friend of mine is on Radio 5 live defending priestly celibacy, perhaps you could 'advertise' it or at least pray for it!

It is scheduled for just after midnight tomorrow evening (Tuesday 17 November), immediately after the news and sport headlines at midnight and lasting probably about 30 minutes, during which there will also be calls coming in from the public.

(Sorry about the short notice, I only just received it.)

By the time you read this, it will probably be tomorrow and the show will have been yesterday. Still, you can always pray retrospectively and then listen to it on iPlayer.

I saw these resources a couple of weekends ago and they look very good. To be honest, I was a bit rushed at the time and didn't get a proper look but the simple fact is that we are not looking at shades of grey here.

There are PSHE programmes that respect the teachings of the Church.

There are PSHE programmes that do not.

It is really, really, really, easy to tell the difference and any school claiming to have been duped in to thinking that a bad one was a good solid Catholic resource needs to call the fire brigade because one of it's teachers was having trouble tying their own shoelaces and now needs freeing.

Here's what the people at Alive to the World have to say for themselves...

Learning to respect sexuality is important to becoming a balanced individual, one who is able to mix freely and form the lasting friendships which prepare for marriage and bringing up the families of the future.

Many SRE programmes are specifically targeted at avoiding teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections. While these objects are laudable, they are also very limited. Every other aspect of school education is designed to prepare students for the whole of life and Alive to the World’s SRE programme does exactly that.

It recognises that there are two types of crisis in modern sexual relations: untimely pregnancies and risk of disease is one, but there is also a growing rate of profound hurt and loneliness in the absence of permanent bonding. This is destructive of family life and can become self-perpetuating. The cost to individuals and to society generally is far reaching, and the financial burden runs annually into billions of pounds.

[link]

Of course, a good resource doesn't change the fact that I don't trust any of the teachers in our schools not to give my kids a nod and a wink and tell them that contraception is really okay.

But then, I barely trust most of the priests on that one either.

Kate has just stumbled across the phrase "resting Catholics" and points out rather amusingly the words of St Augustine...

'.. because you have made us
and drawn us to yourself,
and our hearts are restless
until they rest in you.'

I don't know who these people are with the arbitary magical power to declare new words, the sort of words that nobody knows so we are forever writing things in parenthesis (brackets) like reconciliation (confession), resting (lapsed) and education (selling condoms)...

Personally, I'm with St Augustine. Catholics who are living the faith are at home in the Church, they are at rest. People who have gone wandering are not at rest.

Maybe we should call them restless Catholics.

Please note: The information in this blog entry is out of date. CYMFed have now released the names of their board members, information on this can be found here.

You may recall my previous blog entries on the subject of CYMFed. The Catholic Youth Ministry Federation, which seems to have all the power and authority of the Bishop's conference (able to put a poster in every parish Church and get Archbiship Vincent Nichols along to their conference) without any of the responsibility.

These people are shaping the direction of Catholic youth ministry in this country and we don't even know who they are. According to their website...

The Catholic Youth Ministry Federation (CYMFed) seeks to help shape and support Catholic Youth Ministry in England

...

CYMFed currently brings together 32 stakeholders - Dioceses and Catholic organisations working with young people in England and Wales. Within this federation there are numerous staff and volunteers, between them working with over 30,000 yong people each year.

...

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

[link]

So who wields this immense power and influence? Who makes the decisions about the furthering the vision of youth ministry?

I'm grateful to David Beresford for leaving a comment on this blog offering to answer any questions I might have about CYMFed. I sent him a list of fifteen questions, two of which were:

- Who sits on the CYMFed board? What are their roles?
- Who decides who sits on the CYMFed board?

Remember, if you want to know the same information about CAFOD you can find it here and for CES you can find it here. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask who sits on the board of an organisation that works with over 30,000 young people every year!

David sent me quite a long email in response (I did ask fifteen questions!) but the only thing he said regarding the questions above was this...

Far from being in any way “anonymous” or “shadowy” this membership already engages every Diocese, and every Religious Order, Movement and Organisation working with young people nationally. These members – working with CBCEW – are the ones drawing up the documents to shape the strategy for Youth Ministry nationally, and this is therefore absolutely inclusive and transparent.

I responded...

It's difficult not to see CYMFed as anonymous and shadowy when I still don't know a single name (apart from yourself) of a person on the CYMFed board and I don't know who appoints people to the CYMFed board. If I don't know (and I have done as much as anybody might reasonable do to find out) then nobody knows outside of those who are on the inside. I've asked and you haven't told me. Is it a secret?

...

I'm not opposed to an organisation like CYMFed existing, I just think it ought to be truly open and accountable so that people like myself can keep an eye on it's activities and sound the alarm if we think there's something not right.

No response.

I'm a fair man, so before blogging about it I sent this...

Hi David,

Can you confirm that you won't be sharing the names of the CYMFed board members?

James

That was a more than a week ago and still no response.

I'm discouraged and alarmed at the same time. University Catholic Societies will tell you who sits on the commitee and they don't wield anywhere near so much influence.

Why would people running an organisation like CYMFed hide in the shadows?

Today is the feast of Christ the King and we all know what that means... to the Bat... um... Kitchen?

That's right biscuit time, though I can try to play the child card for the fetching look of the biscuits I cannot for the clearly skillful decor which Leona has kindly tried to hide under the sprinkles :o)

Bishop Conry's recent pastoral letter is a textbook example of everything that is wrong with the Catholic Church in Britain today.

To begin with, I would like you to consider two visions of the cross.

The first is to begin with a very small cross, nothing more than the intersection of two short lines. The core of our Christian faith is suprisingly contained, the love of God. There is little more to Christianity than God who loved us enough to become one of us and go to his death on the cross. Yet the arms of the cross reach out, they grow and grow unstoppably if we will let them, stretching out in all directions until they reach in to every corner of our lives, until they cover the whole world.

The second is to begin with a cross which is rather larger than we would like and then to realise that we can saw off a part of the arms of the cross and still remain a cross. A cross made smaller is still a cross and so we can remove the cross from certain corners of our lives making it smaller and smaller until it is restricted to an hour or so on a Sunday morning. Except, perhaps we can still be Christians without the hour on a Sunday morning. The shape of the cross remains but it is getting smaller.

A small cross is still a cross, which is what makes it difficult to argue. Nobody can deny that the heart of the gospel is the heart of the gospel and that other things are secondary.

What we can argue though is that it matters, it matters tremendously, whether we are allowing the cross to grow in to every corner of our lives (yes, even the bedroom) or shrinking the cross down until it fits neatly in our lives the way we like them.

Unfortunately, I think that Bishop Conry's pastoral letter betrays an attitude to Christianity which is very much concerned with making the cross smaller. With keeping Christianity out of those areas of or lives where we would rather it didn't interfere.

Step 1: If Jesus doesn't make an explicit statement on the matter, then I can believe whatever I like...

One way of restricting the reach of the gospel in our lives is to restrict it to "What did Jesus say".

Bishop Conry writes...

The question, "What does the gospel say about this?" cannot always be answered, because there are questions that Jesus simply did not address.

This is a terribly narrow understanding of the gospel.

The gospel is not restricted to "what did Jesus say" but is rather the good news of God's love for humanity. The gospel has something to say about all aspects of our life because all aspects of our life are affected by this tremendous love and our response to it. The question "What does the gospel say about this?" can always be answered.

It is true that the answer to the question is not always easy to find, it is true that there are certain beliefs which we as Catholics are completely free to make our own jugements on. Issues such as "how much time should I spend playing computer games" have not been defined by the majesterium of the Church but that doesn't mean the Gospel has nothing to say about it.

So I can say "Jesus didn't forbid computer games" which means that clearly I can play them for as long as I like. If my wife asks me to stop and spend time with the children she is clearly being unreasonable because Jesus didn't say anything about computer games.

But Jesus clearly does say something about love and love touches every area of our lives. Even computer games.

Step 2: Don't get caught up on single issues...

Another way to restrict the impact of Christianity is a bit of the old "don't get caught up with single issues" trick.

Bishop Conry writes...

It is all too easy to get caught up and even fixated with single issues, whether this is in religion or politics. So many people tend to focus on liturgy – even the language of the Mass – as if this somehow expresses the core of our beliefs. Others campaign on the moral issues of the day

...

These are all undoubtedly important issues, but they will never get anywhere near expressing our faith in its entirety, and we can ask if some of these questions are actually fundamental to faith at all.

Like all the best lies there is a grain of truth, it would be wrong to focus on individual issues at the expense of the gospel.

But what is also wrong is to look at those looong reaching arms of the cross and to say "is this actually fundamental to faith at all?" Can I remove this and still retain the basic shape of the gospel.

So the liturgy, humanae vitae and the moral issues of the day are all relegated to "single issues", pieces of the cross which can be cut off and cast aside. Is it okay to use contraception? Well, as long as I am leading a good life... why get caught up on single issues. We don't want to become fundamentalists...

To focus on single issues at the expense of love would be wrong, but the focus on them because of love is the very definition of the Christian life. Christianity is precisely about focusing on single issues. Not loving in some abstract sense, but loving this person in these circumstances on this day. Christianity is all about the little things.

Bishop Conry goes on to say...

We will not be judged on the particular and the minute, the single issue. We will be judged on how well we loved, and this applies even if we know God or not.

But when do we love except at some particular moment, who do we love but some particular person, how do we express our love except in some particular way. It would be truer to say that we will only be judged on the particular, how we loved our wife, our family, our enemies. It is precisely for these particular things that we will be judged. It is precisely in every particular thing that we must change the way we live.

Step 3: Everybody is going to heaven anyway...

The final reason not to worry about letting the cross in to every aspect of your life is this.

There is a beautiful picture in an exhibition at the National Gallery in London at the moment: I have asked your priest to mention it to you. It is a picture of Our Lady holding a cloak wide. In the foreground within the cloak are some Carthusian monks, but behind Our Lady the cloak is dark and endless. The commentary suggests that this means that there is room for us all. God’s vision of the Church is broad and generous. Let us embrace that generosity.

It is not generous to make the gospel small and to keep it contained. It is not generous to say "I will not dedicate myself to the particular", to say "if Jesus didn't spell it out, I don't have to believe it". It is not generous to say "as long as I love in general, it is not important for me to accept this particular non-core part of Catholicism".

God's vision of the Church is generous because it reaches out and grows, because it is restricted only by our own willingness to make space in our lives.

Real generosity means allowing Jesus in to every part of our lives and sharing the fullness of his love with others. It means not holding back on life issues and certain encyclicals. It means allowing the gospel to speak to us in ways that go beyond merely doing the bare minimum of going to Mass and believing that Jesus rose from the dead.

Fundamentally, it means sharing the gospel in it's entirity so that instead of making the cross small enough to slip in unnoticed, we actually invite others to be generous with the gospel. Yes, in particular ways. Yes, on those specific issues.

Yes. Even that one.

Until Kieran Conry and the rest of the Bishops conference stop making the cross smaller, it is very difficult to imagine how the Church in Britain is going to get bigger.

But it isn't hard to imagine it getting smaller...

For some reason the feedback page for last years National Youth Sunday is still empty. Perhaps they are struggling to find somebody with something nice to say.

The resources for National Youth Sunday this year are a vast improvement (if a bit shaky in places) and this year they have an online survey for giving your feedback.

If you liked it (or if you didn't) you should tell them what you think.

In just under a weeks time I will be interviewing Bishop Terence Drainey, the Bishop of Middlesbrough for the Catholic Herald. I've never interviewed a Bishop before and I've been keeping an eye on the various interviews that have been published lately with various figures in the Church. This week the front cover of The Tablet is a huge picture of Archbishop Vincent Nichols because they have an interview with him by Catherine Pepinster (the editor of The Tablet). I know that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones but I have to say that it is possibly the worst interview I have ever seen.

The full "interview" (if we can call it that) is 2000 words long, yet it takes Catherine Pepinster a full 470 words before she even quotes the Archbishop once. Quotes, it seems, are not her forte. She prefers to write things like "What Nichols seems anxious to avoid is any risk to relations between Catholics and Anglicans in Britain" leaving the reader with little idea of what the Archbishop actually said. If he seems anxious, why not ask him? How hard is it to say "are you a bit anxious about this?" and then the Archbishop can respond "yes" or "no" or "a bit" and we can find out what he actually has to say instead of relying on this lady's interpretation.

I wondered quite how bad it was, so I pasted it in to word and highlighted the Archbishop's words. Here's an overview...

To make the effect clearer, I did a bit of copying and pasting to put his and her words together in groups...

Out of 2000 words only 508 belong to the Archbishop. That's not an interview, that's a lecture.

If you are the sort of person who enjoys train wrecks then you can read the whole awful thing here but if you would like to see real excellence in interviewing then compare that with Luke Coppen's excellent interview with the same man here.

I'm grateful to Catherine Pepinster really. I might have been a bit nervous about interviewing Bishop Drainey but not now. Even if I burst in to tears and he spends the full hour reading a book while I sob uncontrollably on the floor.. there's no way my interview can end up as badly as this one.

Poor Atheists, they do their best.. Spending hours in photoshop trying to offend me with their pictures.

Not only are their photoshop skills rubbish (ever heard of saturation), but the idea of Jesus at a festival with a can of beer is about as offensive as the idea of Jesus at a wedding with a glass of wine. Newsflash to atheists: Jesus does fun.

Far worse than their pathetic attempts to offend is Church of Scotland minister Dr Gordon Strachan saying...

He needed to go around to learn bits and pieces about ancient wisdom, and the druids in Britain went back hundreds if not thousands of years. He probably came here to meet the druids, to share his wisdom and gain theirs.

Ow, my eyes, it burns.

If Jesus wanted to meet druids, he should have come 2000 years later and visited the Church of Scotland.

I liked this...

As seen on Gavin's blog.