Catholic Voices refuse to defend the unborn

Blogged by James Preece on 26th October 2010

My blog post yesterday about Cafod's plans to have Jon Snow chair their annual Paul VI lecture received more "Yay!" votes on it's first day than any other I have ever written.

For most people, this is not hard. You don't ask somebody to chair an event if you disagree with them - the National Secular Society don't have events chaired by Pope Benedict and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals don't have events chaired by prominent supporters of fox hunting.

If you ask somebody to chair an event you are endorsing them. Especially when you put their name prominently on the poster!

Jon Snow has publicly supported abortion, contraception and women priests. He is not a suitable person for a Catholic organisation to have chair a prominent lecture.

I thought this was obvious. So I emailed Austen Ivereigh of Catholic Voices...

I know we don't get on, but surely we can agree this is a problem?

http://www.lovingit.co.uk/2010/10/jon-snow-to-chair-cafod-lecture.html

James

His response? Well - first he asked me about my motives. Rather than just, you know, saying something he would happily defend in public. He asked if I was going to print his email and sneer at it. Just to keep him happy, I won't print his email. Here's my next one...

I'm just asking if you agree that it's a problem?

I would have thought an open, transparent and respectable organisation like Catholic Voices would have no need to answer such a question off the record or to question the motives of the person asking the question...

I might print your views, I might sneer at them, I might praise them. It all rather depends on what they are. Your hesitation to answer the question has already spoken volumes.

James

His response? Well, let's just say Catholic Voices will not be speaking out in the defense of the unborn this time. Don't expect a public statement that abortion is absolutely wrong and Cafod are wrong to invite a chair who supports it.

It's interesting because when Catholic Voices began many people pointed to Joanna Bogle's TV appearance opposite Jon Snow as an example of why a project like Catholic Voices was needed.

Now Catholic Voices have a chance to oppose Jon Snow's views on condom use in Africa - where are they now? Nowhere.

Rate this blogentry: + -

+62

This Item Tagged With:

Reader Comments

anumblepp said...

No surprise there, then. Mustn't upset the apple cart for the sake of being authentically Catholic.

The NBCW foundresses of FAMILY Fast Days in 1961 (raising funds to help a mother and baby health scheme) could never have envisaged the 'progress' that CAFOD would make....

http://kidzzone.cafod.org.uk/about-cafod/history-of-cafod/

+12

Richard Collins said...

It does not surprise me; an organisation that is headed by liberal Catholics will never succeed in standing up for the Faith, well intentioned as it may be.
They could also benefit from real commercial PR type experience at the top rather than Diocesan spokespeople.

JOHN said...

Considering The Tablet is sponsoring the event then it is obvious that Crony voices will say nothing.

Having worked in media and PR for over 35 years I can see self interest and journalistic deceit with my eyes closed. Crony Voices will never bite the hand that pays them.

pattif said...

Why would you need people with "real commercial PR type eperience...rather than Diocesan spokespeople" to produce a statement that promotion of abortion, contraception and women priests is always and everywhere unacceptable? Just askin'....

Richard said...

Pattif - because those with a background in Diocesan affairs tend to be tainted with what Damian Thompson calls 'Bishopese'. You need an experienced media person free of interference from the Bishops of E & W who can and will speak straight.

Policraticus said...

Ricjard- with respect - we ceratinly don't need so called 'experts' like Damian Thompson.

pattif said...

I take your point Richard, but I can think of an "experienced media person" or two who give every impression of having tutored their Lordships in "Bishopese".

JOHN said...

I Have never been able to work out what gives people the right to claim the title of expert.

Banking experts took us bankruptcy

Economic experts took us to the worst recession in living memory

Medical experts try to re-define life as beginning after implantation - thereby targeting the pre implanted child embryo

Bishop experts agree with the Medical experts..

Unknown Experts are moving Catholic groups and associations to the field of NGO's - whereby they lose all Catholicity.

Political Experts leave their catholic ethics in a closet.

Media experts and opinionated catholic publications such as the tablet have so many experts that it would be hard to fit them into one page - never mind one room
- but they still love each other with a back slapping critique

Gay experts in the media claim public money by association with politicians (so the secular media say on parliamentary expenses)
Gay experts also claim that the definition of family has widened to beyond marriage between a man and a woman.

Opus Dei experts tell us the Church has no problem with condoms.

Thank God I am not an Expert - just a simple father and husband with a wife (not partner) and children who will always always keep their eyes open

However I am very proud of getting one thing right - well in advance - in that VN is a red hat short of a Cardinal.

Heard he was surrounded by all his experts as PB16 was making new Cardinal announcements - VN wasn't even on the field of play - So that was a bad expert day

So I guess the moral of the story is - all the experts in England cannot guarantee a red hat letter day

Paul Priest said...

er..who called it 'Bishopese' ?

pattif said...

Point taken - are you by any chance bilingual? ;-)

pattif said...

Paul - I've just re-read my post before yours, and I'd like to make it clear that I wasn't referring to you.

Richard Collins said...

Paul, I cribbed it from one of Damian Thompson's recent blogs. It struch me as being most appropriate.

Paul Priest said...

Yes Richard - I know - but did you read the 'crib'? [wink!]

Policraticus said...

Please support pro-life vigil at Parliament tomorrow Wed 27 Oct

see blog post

Austen Ivereigh said...

Actually, 'Catholic Voices refuses to give James Preece a quote every time he tediously attempts yet again to portray it as heterodox' would be a more accurate title for this post.

If anyone wants to know what CV speakers have said about issues during the papal visit, the website is here: www.catholicvoices.org.uk. The papal visit is now over, and we're taking a break while plans are made for next year.

+16

pattif said...

While I understand CV is taking a break at the moment, it seems to me that it might have been a better use of the time taken to write the above comment to have have produced a simple statement that the promotion of abortion, contraception and women priests is always and everywhere unacceptable. No one could, or would have wished to, have portrayed that as heterodox.

+13

Auricularis said...

So what's stopping Ivereigh Towers from issuing a simple press statement, commenting on the matter?

Would it be to do with the fact that the CAFOD lecture is sponsored by none other than the "Tablet" which Austen has voiced his dissenting views on the prophylactic use of condoms in preventing AIDS?

+14

Simon Platt said...

Not persuaded, I'm afraid.

"Catholic" "Voices" is a big disappointment. We've been had.

+21

Paul Priest said...

Sigh!
Austen darling, now that you've condescended to appear here, insult a Catholic blogger and commentator [who does your team's job for them more vociferously and efficaciously than you could ever imagine performing] and yet again refuse to defend Catholic teaching...

...and as your 'sabbatical' doesn't prevent you making vicious assaults against pro-Life campaigners and advocate John Smeaton; while allowing [i.e. not preventing] your CV lackeys to make accusations of libel against him; and appear on blogs/twitter etc defending CV and attacking those bitterly disappointed by the initiative.

Maybe you have a few seconds of your valuable time to answer a few questions?

a] Since August [i.e. before the Papal visit] you have become independent of the Catholic Union and formed a registered charity with yourself, Jack and Kathleen as trustees. Yes?
Therefore:

i] From whom did you receive the mandate to continue as Catholic Voices , given it was a Catholic Union initiative ; and why did you dissociate yourselves BEFORE you finished your job for them ?

ii] From whom did you receive canonically-necessary permission to continue using the title 'Catholic'? A Bishop? Bishops' conference? Remember you required permission once you dissociated yourself from the CU?

iii] Were the person/persons who allowed you to continue using the name 'Catholic' aware of your [and maybe Kathleen's considering she's a sef-declared 'liberal'?] heterodox positions* which might ostensibly preclude you by canon law from being trustees of a Catholic Charity ? [*Jack has since declared that he does not support the position of condoms within marriage for those with hiv+ even though he did not prevent that position's promotion within the CV briefing notes - and CV Peter Williams reassures us that his 'slip of the tongue' on television apparently promoting the position was just that - a mistake]

iv] As you have previously refused to answer most questions regarding the financial set-up of CVs [e.g. the source of its funding other than it being 'a charitable foundation' ; and that the Catholic Union did not finance it in any way]. Maybe you could tell us if the funders knew that you were to become independent of the CU before your mandate for papal visit commentary expired ? Did the funders permit transferral of their funds towards one thing [i.e. a Catholic Union initiative] to instead join with the funds/resources and monies accrued from media appearances, donations etc to the new Charity ?

v] I take it we have your absolute reassurance that yourself, Jack and Kathleen received no money whatsoever after 5th August for anything to do with Catholic Voices ? [In line with the Charities commission regulations regarding trustees]

Sorry to ask these 'tedious' questions; but well ? You know ? It would be nice to be able to answer the questions to all those in the blogosphere asking what the hell's going on and why is that 'Oaf Ivereigh' [unquote] allowed anywhere near the media in the name of Catholicism. When we know who allowed you to run a 'Catholic' charity with a Catholic name we'll be somewhat reassured that we know who to blame. We are all somewhat bemused at your altruism though - why are you doing all this when you can't receive a penny for it - three months work eh? The unscrupulous out there might presume some other motive? but we all here know better don't we...?
If you answer these questions then luckily you'll have all us here who'll be able to quash all rumours that you're anything other than a loving, wonderful, extravagantly generous and altruistic individual - yes?

And if you don't want to answer any of these questions:
Maybe you could answer James's instead?
Would be so much easier...

Frideswide said...

Yes, I�m curious about Paul�s point v) as well:

on 22nd September, Austen Ivereigh posts on Lawrence England�s blog that the costs of the Catholic Voices project have included: �fees for one day a week over six months for three coordinators.� http://thatthebonesyouhavecrushedmaythrill.blogspot.com/2010/09/behead-ivereigh.html?showComment=1285152568702#c6705347418721424260

According to its website, Catholic Voices was launched in February 2010. It became a charity registered with the Charity Commission on 5th August 2010, less than six months later. The three trustees of the charity are its three coordinators, Jack Valero, Austen Ivereigh and Kathleen Griffin. If Austen Ivereigh�s statement is accurate and payments for services were made to the three coordinators for a full six months � which would cover a period after Catholic Voices became a charity � some questions would arise. Trustees of a charity may be paid for services they provide to the charity, but only subject to strict conditions explained by the Charity Commission in Section E, Paying Trustees for Services, of CC11 here: http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Publications/cc11.aspx#5.

As well as the documentary requirements at Section E4 that the decisions to pay must be recorded in detail separately from the charity�s minutes, these conditions include the requirement in Section E1 that the decision to pay a trustee must be made by trustees who will not benefit, and the requirement in Section E9 that payment for services may only be made if, at the time in question, the total number of trustees receiving payment from the charity�s funds will be in a minority on the trustee board. If, as Austen Ivereigh implies, all three trustees have received payment for services over a period of six months, it is not easy to see how the mechanics of the decisions to make payment would have complied with these requirements. It would be reassuring to have it confirmed that, since Catholic Voices became a charity, its trustees have complied and continue to comply with all the requirements of the Charity Commission.

Clare said...

This sort of rudeness really stops me in my tracks.
If you have a valid point or two in there Paul, the nastiness and sarcasm obscures it.
Why should Austen answer any questions when they are presented in such an obnoxious manner?

Clare said...

I was replying to Paul, not Frideswide, whose comment I haven't read yet.

+13

Paul Priest said...

Oh Clare - have you ever encountered Mr Ivereigh and been a victim of his contempt or disdain?

In consideration of my treatment by DOCTOR Ivereigh I think you'll find my questioning relatively tame - in such regard I was veritable fluff-bundle of affability.

Maybe you should do a little research?
The sin of detraction prevents me revealing anyone's crimes and misdemeanours - but they're readily available online for anyone to read should they care to peruse...

Frideswide said...

Indeed Paul, but on the credit side, Dr Ivereigh is a model of filial devotion, never missing an opportunity to plug his mother's company, 5th Gospel Retreats. There was a corker the other day on his America Magazine blog on the back of an interview with Archbishop Kelly: http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=3434#comments
He entirely omits to mention that Della Shenton is his mother. Does America pay him to write advertorial?
It's a purely altruistic gesture on his part, though, as he has no shares in 5th Gospel Retreats, it being a company limited by guarantee of �1 - something its creditors might like to bear in mind.

Paul Priest said...

Never met the lady - thought she had something to do with boats and selling some sort of fairtrade stuff? But is this 'fifth Gospel' the one according to Ivereigh ?

Frideswide said...

By boats I think you must mean Square Sail, based in Charlestown, for whom Mrs Shenton works, or worked, as a book-keeper.
5th Gospel Retreats is her own company, and its activities include acting in an advisory capacity to parish or other groups for pilgrimages to the Holy Land, including for the Plymouth Diocesan pilgrimage next February. The company also imports wine produced by the Salesians at Cremisan, and olive wood products. Customers include Oscott and Ushaw Seminaries, the Salesians at Thornleigh, Worth Abbey and parish groups through Bethlehem evenings.
If you are interested in 5th Gospel Retreats, as well as looking at its revamped website, you can download the 3 sets of accounts since its incorporation from Companies House using the Webcheck facility.

Clare said...

Paul
No I haven't encountered Mr Ivereigh, but I think I'll pass on the opportunity to Google for dirt.
In any case surely we shouldn't be making exceptions for rude behaviour on the grounds that "he has been worse than me"?
Being gracious and courteous towards ones "enemies" should be a mark of Christian discourse.
The Pope gives us a beautiful example of this, which inspires me to try harder to be charitable in disagreements.

Paul Priest said...

Ok - sixth attempt:

Clare - I didn't ask you to go muck-raking; I suggested you discover how Dr Ivereigh argues.

Now I cannot defend myself without the sin of detraction ; so I'm afraid you're simply going to have to believe me when I say I have my reasons for arguing in this way - I do not like doing it and believe you me if there was any other way I could do it - I would!

Maybe if you scrutinised exactly what James has said on this thread and Austen's response you might begin to understand.

Being cordial and objective is automatically precluded in these circumstances - because it's automatically swept aside with dismissive derision, ad hominems and patronising statements which attempt a sleight of hand that answers questions which were never asked and leaves every pertinent question hanging.

I'm sorry - but I can't say any more. I will not stoop to his level.

Clare said...

"I didn't ask you to go muck-raking; I suggested you discover how Dr Ivereigh argues."

Well then maybe I misunderstood you when you said this:

"Maybe you should do a little research?
The sin of detraction prevents me revealing anyone's crimes and misdemeanours - but they're readily available online for anyone to read should they care to peruse..."

Perhaps it's me, maybe I need to take a break from reading stuff online.
I guess blogging is not the stuff that saints are made of.

Sarah said...

The papal visit is now over. Time for 'Catholic Voices' to be quiet and make room for the voices of Catholics.

St John Smythe said...

I saw the Catholic Voices on TV during the Papal Visit, and heard them on the radio - they spoke very well, and were entirely orthodox and articulate. A couple of them went toe-to-toe with Peter Tatchell and AC Grayling, amongst others, and they did a good job of standing up for the Faith. Surely they've earned the right to be respected for the great work they did and - we must hope - bringing souls closer to God?

When the CV project is in abeyance, it seems a bit much to be seeking quotations regarding another Catholic organisation's activities and then waving the lack of desired quotation around as some evidence of dissent. It's a non-story.

+14

pattif said...

This is a fair point, and I would not have commented if it had not been for one of the CVs-in-chief being a lot quicker with a comment criticising a member of the "Catholic Taliban" than one critical of a promoter of activities contrary to Catholic teaching. It just seemed an odd sense of priorities, when a statement in support of the Church's teaching would have been just as easy to issue and a source of no controversy whatsoever.

Michael said...

I'm sure there was a post about this person's IP address and identity last time I looked?

Certainly a very highly questionable practice on James' part, given the anonymity that many of us assume - often for good reason - when we post... but interesting nonetheless.

Where's it gone?!

James said...

I took it down because I changed my mind about it.

Michael said...

Good decision.

+10

Paul Priest said...

Excuse me - but Austen has replied - and while doing so he refused to comment; which speaks volumes.

Earned a right to be respected?
Would you care to elucidate?

Bringing souls closer to God?
In what way pray tell?

Surely as a member of Catholic Voices you remember the words 'written as deep as a spear is long on the world ash tree' - That Catholic Voices in the media was NO PLACE for evangelisation??!!

Your loyalty is commendable; your duplicity is disappointing; if your co-ordinator wouldn't speak out against the presence of Jon 'Death-culture-afficianado' Snow at a Tablet sponsored 'C'AFOD event ? YOU SHOULD HAVE!!!

Far from this being a non-story; your very presence on here has compounded Catholic Voices' collaborationist crime.

Frideswide said...

And it is surely disingenuous of Dr Ivereigh to avoid answering the question on abortion by claiming that Catholic Voices is taking a break, when this very evening (as James points out in another thread) Jack Valero is speaking in Cathedral Hall, and is promoted as:
"a co-ordinator of Catholic Voices: a bureau of speakers able to articulate with conviction the Church�s positions on major contentious issues in the media."

Frideswide said...

And debating with the humanists at Commonwealth Hall hardly counts as taking a break:
http://www.indcatholicnews.com/news.php?viewStory=16996

pattif said...

Quite. While there is no reason why they shouldn't do this, it is a pity they simultaneously decline to engage with their fellow Catholics. And I would dearly love to know how they presented the Catholic position on the issues under discussion.

Paul Priest said...

Pattif : Both Austen & 'St John', together with the CV media monitor and varous members of the team have stated that CVs is in abeyance until the new year.

So all this unmitigated baloney about 'Catholics' and humanists in conference being a fruit of the Papal visit is propaganda sourced in self-deluded opportunism !

Whom did CVs represent ?
And on whose authority with what mandate and remit?
Apart from themselves and their own?

Did they state a truly Orthodox Catholic position on every issue?

Who cares?

It was an unofficial meeting which wasn't appointed or delegated to represent the nation's Catholics - ergo it was a patch-up private meeting to resolve some of the issues of the unmitigatedly disastrous public meeting where poor Neil d'Aguilar was sent in amongst the baying humanist wolves at the last minute like a lamb to the slaughter - so catastrophic that ultimately the majority-secularist audience ended up feeling sorry for the unprepared and untrained Mr d'Aguilar - a fiasco where all culpability lies at the door of the CV co-ordinators.

Irrespective of what spin poor Huw Twiston-Davies of the Catholic Herald was fed - Catholic Voices - a self-declared 'charity in abeyance until the new year' were not some official ambassadors or Episcopal-executive delegation for Catholicism to the Humanist representatives....

...and if Austen wishes to come on here and suggest otherwise ?
Maybe he could explain what 'in abeyance' means?
If they're closed for business until 2011 then he must confirm this meeting was a simple conflab with no official status.

If they're merely picking and choosing what they decide to do?

Maybe considering some Bishop or episcopal body gave them the title 'Catholic' to ensure as a charity they promote Catholicism - they will confirm to James Preece that they do indeed condemn Jon Snow's appearance at the Tablet-Sponsored Cafod event ?

Frideswide - as I said I know bugger all about Austen's mother ; although I'd heard that something called Ceramdela ltd was forcibly Liquidated in 1994 by an angry creditor - but being a shelf-stacker I don't even know what that means, let alone care; only the rich are tediously shallow enough to want to be rich.

Frideswide said...

Paul, your pivotal role as a shelf stacker (as well as your many other qualifications) will, I don't doubt, give you an understanding of supply chain economics.
Yes indeed, the London Gazette confirms that Ceramdela Limited, of which Della Shenton (mother of Austen Ivereigh) was, according to Companies House, a director, was put into compulsory liquidation in 1994, following a petition by one of its creditors.
http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/53797/pages/13365

Clare said...

"only the rich are tediously shallow enough to want to be rich."
Are you sure?
Are poor people never tediously shallow enough to want to be rich?

Paul Priest said...

No Clare: The poor need money ; certain others don't need it, but most certainly want it !

Clare said...

Oh. I thought poor people are just as subject to the usual boring vices as rich people. It doesn't make sense to me that shallowness and greed is unique to rich people.
In fact I know that's not true because I know some extraordinarily wealthy people who live simply, are never showy and are very philanthropic and generous with their resources. I also know some people who are, at least by this countries standards "poor" and who obsess about wealth and it's trappings and very much desire to be wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice. Not so that they can assist others, because they are misanthropes, but simply because they want to be blinging rich.
I hate caricaturising "rich people" and "poor people" as though they were different varieties of human being.

Paul Priest said...

Oh Clare please...do you think we don't know that? It was a mere aside and frankly an irrelevance given the nature of this thread. I was paraphrasing Chesterton if you must know. Now how about discussing the issue at hand?

gurnygob said...

Just wanted you to know there is a new post up at
http://thequestforthepearl.blogspot.com

Catholic Shinobi said...

It strikes me as the spirit of timidity.

Since when were Catholics off duty when it comes to telling the truth and spreading the Gospel?

I propose CV grow a set. Man up, Don't shoot the messenger.

+14

Uwe Vuvuzela said...

CV is full of Oxbridge graduates but also somehow disconnected from the hermeneutic.

The Oxford educated Lord Clark expressed it most eloquently:

"The great achievement of the Catholic Church lay in harmonizing, civilising the deepest impulses of ordinary, ignorant people."

I see no evidence of this achievement in the CV project.

Austen Ivereigh said...

Paul Priest is a pompous ass, darling!

+10

Paul Priest said...

This couldn't possibly be Austen: He'd never dream of returning just to make a derogatory remark about a non-entity such as myself.
To him I'm worth neither the time nor the energy.
The real Austen [of course], being a trustee and co-ordinator of a Catholic charity; would have responded to the concerns of the faithful.

Frideswide said...

It does indeed look like a case of identity theft: the real Dr Ivereigh would surely not make the elementary mistake of confusing the mote in someone else's eye with the beam in his own.

JOHN said...

Who is Austen Ivereigh ?

Never heard of him

Is he a serious journalist or a legend in his own mind?