With You Always: From the Archdiocese of Liverpool

Blogged by James Preece on 17th January 2011

I've been keeping an eye on Archbishop Patrick Kelly for a little while now - he's the Archbishop of Liverpool and therefore the big fish in the Province of Liverpool of which our Diocese of Middlesbrough Diocese is a part. Archbishop Kelly is a trustee at Ushaw and it just so happens that the rector of Ushaw was made our Bishop.

I wonder if perhaps Archbishop Kelly recommended him? Magic circle and all that... It's hard to imagine somebody making the rector of Ushaw a Bishop and not asking the opinion of a trustee who happens to be a neighbouring Archbishop.

So I keep an eye on Archbishop Kelly because whatever happens in Liverpool is likely to be happening here. I mean, somebody must decide what happens in our diocese and Bishop Drainey has made it abundantly clear that it isn't him!

So... what's happening in the Archdiocese of Liverpool?

The following video is not a joke, it was made by the Diocese of Liverpool as propaganda material to convince parish catechists to go along with the latest zany scheme.

Archbishop Kelly appears to believe in earnest that pre-concilliar Baptism was completely pointless. His mother wasn't there, his God-parent's were not his God-parents and the priest spoke only to him. I mean - he's scarecely Baptised at all! God forbid the rite of Baptism might have some point above and beyond getting everybody together for a party.

Then there's the amazing contradiction between the lady telling us that we wouldn't expect the school to potty train our children so we should't expect the school to train them in the faith and then saying that the sacrament of reconcilliation will be introduced gradually at primary schools! What?

The decision to move confirmation is interesting and I'm not necessarily opposed. I'm not convinced by their arguments but I think there are arguments to be made. I think the best option might be to taylor it to the development of individual children but that might mean *gasp* discrimination. Nope. Better to treat all the children exactly the same - then we can tell the parents exactly what is going to happen and when whether they like it or not because they are the first teachers or something...

P.S. Not married? Who cares...

h/t Fr Simon Henry

Rate this blogentry: + -

+12

This Item Tagged With:

Reader Comments

The Blue Warrior said...

The Bishop's baptism, as he describes it, sounds like it occurred under unusual circumstances; but I would hardly think it was the norm for most baptisms in his day. It's like the "Spirit of Vatican II" brigade summing up the pre-conciliar liturgy: "the priest had his back to the people and mumbled in Latin." The technically correct but woefully insufficient description was designed to be a sweeping indictment on the old ways.

This video is a great bit of propaganda; uses the association of JPII and BXVI to bolster the changes which are allowed by the Church (age/order of Confirmation), but cleverly omits references to JPII, BXVI, Canon Law, the Catechism of the Catholic Church all of which demand that First Penance precede First Communion. On this point (if implemented), the Church in Liverpool is not at one with the Universal Church.

From the Vatican, 31 March 1977: "The mind of the declaration is that one year after the promulgation of the same declaration, all experiments of receiving first communion without the sacrament of penance should cease so that the discipline of the church might be restored, in the spirit of the decree, Quam Singulari."

These days, being stuck in the past appears mean being stuck in the 1970s.

+12

Chrysostom said...

Bishop Kelly, as he then was, introduced the confirmation at the age of six scheme in the Salford Diocese and now, just before his retirement, he seeks to impose it on the Archdiocese of Liverpool. In Salford it has been a monumental failure: parents loathe it, children have not a clue what is happening, and the churches are emptying quicker than ever. It is against Canon Law and goes against everything that THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH says about confirmation. Archbishop Kelly's favourite word is "dialogue" but I consider him as the most despotic and tyrannical of all the bishops. He will not change his mind about Ushaw and he will push the new mad confirmation scheme on the diocese despite all the opposition. I know of no example in his time at Salford or now in Liverpool where he ever listened to other people and changed his mind. Parishes were closed with a disregard for what the people said. He is currently in the Middle East.

Simon Platt said...

There's at least one occasion in which Abp. Kelly has listed and changed his mind. He listened to his council of priests and changed his mind about erecting a personal parish for the extraordinary form in Liverpool.

Ostrich said...

Come on James, get with the programme. This wonderful DVD will change our lives, it will restore all that was lost, God will be praised the length and breadth of the country, and all will be well. Honestly....No, really....I promise....Oh, well, maybe........

Patricius said...

The funniest part of the video is where the non-Catholic partner volunteers to run a stall at the parish fete!
Seriously though, the most important aspect is the unspoken part. Archbishop Kelly contrasts the details of his own baptism with what is proposed as if what happened in the past was wrong - when, in fact, the real change being addressed is the change in the social context. I daresay that the Archbishop was born in a good practicing Catholic family. It was entirely reasonable for his baptism to be carried out in the manner described since since it was safe to assume that he would be nurtured in the faith at home by good married practicing parents. The problem of how to deal with non practicing/non Catholic parents is real and, clearly, what is happening here is an attempt to engage them with the local parish through attendance at sessions of the sacramental preparation programmes both for the child's benefit and their own. Such programmes are easy to criticise and, having had to attend and suffer similar sessions for my own children, I have done my fair share of grumbling. To be lectured by other parishioners whose knowledge of the faith is, shall we say, somewhat less than one's own, can be somewhat testing! Given that the majority present can be largely what I heard one priest call "resting Catholics" one has to respect the effort being made. Will it work? I can't say. The Archbishop knows his diocese better than I do- but I'd warn the PP to watch who he has manning his stalls at the parish fete!

Catrin said...

Someone needs to get me some crackers to go with all that cheese.
I wonder if being "more involved in the church" means knowing Church teachings, and having a deep relationship with God, or does it mean knowing that Maria makes a mean cup of tea, and Jenny makes friendly small talk. Does it mean running a stall in the fete, or falling to your face in Adoration?
And the Quotes,"Prayer is LIKE talking to God" and "Holy Communion is meeting Jesus in a special way" sick.bucket.please.

+11

Salisbury John said...

some facts.(I have friends in Salford)

the Salford Diocesan confirmation programme introduced by the then Bishop Patrick Kelly which allowed children age 7 [not 6!] to be confirmed prior to First Communion was allowed ad experimentum (10 years) by the Congregation for Divine Worship. A full report was sent to Rome after this period. It wasn't until Bishop Terence Brain took over as bishop of Saflord in 1997 that the CDW finally got round to instructing the new bishop to cease the practice of the former confirmation programme not least because it was an obstruction to the bishop properly visitating his parishes. There was also the fact that whilst canon law talks of the sacraments of initiation being baptism, confirmation, eucharist [in that order] the CDW interpret this as referring to the initiation of adults not infants, leaving the possibility of confirmation being received at a later age. Sadly instead of taking this opportunity of aligning the practice of confirming at adolescence in Salford along with most dioceses, Bishop Brain decided to create a hybrid form of the programme of his predecessor by keeping the confirmation prior to First Communion with him frantically rushing round the diocese trying to confirm asd many kids as possible some times just weeks [even days] before they were due to receive their First Communion....clearly such frenetic activity could not be sustained so priests have to be mandated to confirm along with him as the Ordinary [all most unsatisfactory to the majority of parents and most clergy]

When Kelly was appointed to Liverpool he was asked if he would introduce the salford programme in Liverpool but denied it saying what was right for Salford at the time was right for Salford it does not necessarily mean the same for Liverpool. So he's either going back on that or wants to leave a similar legacy to his successor in the Archdiocese as he did in Salford. It's no wonder the Salford clergy used to describe the reign from Bishop Holland to Bishop Kelly as moving from monologue to kellog - the latter is prone to doing things in a 'serial' kind of way - pardon the pun.

Maybe in this age of both Catholic schools and parishes effectively being factories of lapsation, perhaps it's time to postpone Confirmation & First Communion to at least 12 as rite of passage to secondary education, with intense catechesis on the power of the Eucharist to heal and then help them revisit Penance & Eucharist as THE focus for adolescence and beyond to sustain them?

Cavalier said...

Maybe in this age of both Catholic schools and parishes effectively being factories of lapsation...

Most unjust, dear sir! Why, only the other day I was listening to some young Catholics speaking eloquently about their faith, doubtless informed by the sterling efforts of their Catholic school and diocesan youth ministry.

Catholikos said...

Once again Cavalier attempts a defence of the Rotten Borough of the BCEW. The facts/numbers/statistics/evidence, of lapsation is clear to see. If most of our schools & parishes are not failing then who is? Yes, there are many good schools & parishes but the rest are a disaster. Perhaps Cavalier has an answer for the rate of lapsation that doesn't involve the school or the parish. I'm agog!

James said...

I think there may have been a hint of sarcasm in Cavalier's comment...

Catholicos said...

Humble apologies to Cavalier. I should have looked at the link before having at you! I grovel in mortification. Next time I will 'think before I post' - careless talk costs lives.

Salisbury John said...

Cavalier - the irony appears lost on some but for the sake of clarity the script for the BBC radio programme your link takes one to is

The first child confirmed she was "a practising Catholic" and was asked by Dowd what she would like to say if she meets the Pope. She replied:

"I don't think [the Pope] quite understands that we're in the 21st century yet, and I think that some of his views are still quite outdated, things that he's said about abortion and same-sex marriages."

"Do you think it's possible to be a Catholic and to be pro-abortion and in favour of same-sex marriage?"

"Yeah, I think it is. I know I certainly am, and I don't have a problem admitting that and being a Catholic."

The second child referred negatively to "the stuff" in Catholic teaching "that's a bit restricting" such as "chastity," adding that "the best thing about being a Catholic is the fact that you can pick and choose which bits you'd like to believe in, as long as you worship God."

The Director of Youth Services in the Nottingham diocese:

Fr Joe Wheat: "You talk to 50 young people who would refer to themselves as Catholic and you'll get 50 different versions of Catholicism, which is brilliant. It's fantastic actually."

Chris Dowd: "A lot of the students we spoke to [at St Benedict's school] mentioned contraception, abortion, homosexuality. Can they, in your view, maintain views which are contrary to Church teaching but still call themselves a good Catholic?"

"Depends what your measure of 'good' is when you say 'good Catholic'."

"What's your measure?"

"I don't have one. I try not to make value judgments about people's Catholicism, because I don't want them to make value judgments about mine."

Seems to me most young [tragically non catechised] Catholics today love Pope Benedict 'more than beans on toast' [a banner ar Cofton Park] precisely because they will settle for theological/pastoral formation that's about as palatable and nutritional (over the long term) as beans on toast.

Genty said...

It's this mix of 1960s iconoclasm and a hierarchy with Irish antecedents which is so toxic.
On the one hand you have a generation which was fully formed in the Catholic faith and then proceeded to trash it.
On the other hand what was retained was the mindset of Irish clericalism. (I am permitted to say this because I have Irish antecedents.)
That it should be manifested so strongly in the north of England, for hundreds of years the cradle of recusancy which kept the Catholic faith alive, is sad beyond words.

+11

Policraticus said...

Churchill's words resonate as I read this blog about the Archbishop of Liverpool. "Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."

Sr Loveme Sandals said...

Wonderful! Simply wonderful! Fair trade tea too! You lot need to get with it, and realise the catholic church is no longer about rules and regulations but about welcome.and tea.That mother's dress in the first communion mass was just lovely, if you've got it,flaunt it-God made her body, so she should show it off.
Now I'm off to prepare my talk for RCIA (or tea drinking), entitled "Whatever you want, whatever you like"-I feel a song coming on.

louella said...

I don't want to be too hard on these videos and their efforts to evangelise ...but...they make it seem as if Catholicism is so nice and easy. But it actually is not. There are many, many things the Church views as sinful which wider society doesn't...but this is never mentioned.

Surely we should tell the whole truth about the Church.....and explain why some things are sinful. And what about the spiritual battle between good and evil etc. All the 'nasty' things seem to have been left under wraps. Leaving all this out only leaves an insipid type faith for our children which doesn't attract or fire their enthusiasm.

Lindi said...

As the first comment said - the bishop's baptism was possibly in unusual circumstances. As I listened to his account I immediately recalled one of my babies baptism at the age of three days , in hospital just before his operation , with me and a nurse present ( dad at home with the other children )
Why do Catholics over the age of fifty seem determined to denigrate their own formation ?

pattif said...

On April 16th 1927 (Holy Saturday), a baby boy was born and, on the same day,in a small parish church in the Diocese of Passau (Germany), was baptised Josef Alois Ratzinger. It is highly unlikely that his mother was present. Oddly enough, Pope Benedict XVI has always spoken of the event with great pride.

Clearly, he lacks the sacramental understanding of the Archbishop of Liverpool.

Tevez said...

I am an active member of my parish and am amazed at how little the church is interested in the people. We are the parish, the diocese, the church and this change is another example of a total lack of understanding of who is the church. No one has been consulted about the change, in particular our teenage catholics. I have been asked to give opinion about the change this weekend- I hope it will be listened to. I am not at this moment against it but the argument given for change namely the video falls way of the mark and having seen unmarried people from mixed faith religions have their baptism rejected on many occasions this video seeks to give a view of the church that is not correct. The suggestion that religious education and involvement will be so well integrated into the teenage years needs to be properly structured before we can believe that the change will work. I think the church will loose a whole generation of teenagers where this is our last chance of giving them some empowerment. Would appreciate some feedback for meeting

peter said...

Who are you meeting?
I think there are many valid points of concern to raise in the comments already made. You could begin with the conciliatory comment that this order makes sense for an adult coming into the church, but for children, how did it work out when tried before in terms of the church in Salford? What was the CDWs opinion of it? If the CDW was negative what is different?
Do they see any problems in having Liverpool children out of sync with the rest of the UK, let alone the worldwide Church? People are very likely to live in many different places as they grow.
Confirmation as a teenager has the benefit of greater comprehension of the adult world. If all your formation and teaching is as a child, some people even if fond of their faith see it as a childish thing, and so have few intellectual defences against the arguments of the secular world, atheists or Baptist/ evangelical churches. Teenagers will often raise the hard questions themselves during the preparation for confirmation.
The age is also a natural one, as it is the age at which you are progressing from being a child to being an adult, and so it is natural that this is the age when you take full responsibility for the faith which, if baptised as an infant, was leant to you with love and hope by your parents. I think that without a formal statement of faith as an adult, or at the cusp of becoming one, there may be a yearning for this still in some. I think this is one of the emotional draws used by sects like the Baptists when they try to take people away from the Church. The opportunity to confirm your faith as an adult, in their case by re-baptising the already validly baptised.
Things in favour of these changes? I can see none. Abp. Kelly's talk at the beginning of the video and the concept of a joined up system with catechis leading through the sacraments and on to adult life is inarguably a good idea, but there is absolutely no reason why that cannot be grappled with without changing the age for Confirmation.

Peter McLoughlin said...

Abp Kelly's comments on his Baptism are perfectly reasonable. Of course the supernatural transformative effect of baptism is present in even the most perfunctory Baptism, even with the wrong people there, but it must be better for it to take place as part of a flow and process of growth in faith with and alongside your family, parish and church. Do any of you believe that it does not matter that his real Godparents were not there?
I have met the Archbishop on several occasions and I believe him to be a very holy priest and so I see this video through the lens of having met the man. Despite all the above though, this age change for confirmation does not strike me as a good idea at all.

Paul Grant said...

Peter,
It is still the case, even in the 'wonderful gift' of the New Rite Of Baptism of Children, so lauded by his Grace, that the Godparents can be present by proxy. If this is such a terrible, awful thing then why is his Grace not trying to change it? Could it be because this is actually a sensible, pastoral provision for cases where the Godparents are unable to attend? After all, his parents weren't forced to have these 'absentee Godparents' they could have chosen people who could actually be present at the Baptism. How cruel of the Church to allow the parents to have the Godparents they wanted instead of forcing them to choose people who were actually there in person. Wicked.

This is yet another instance of the hermeneutic of dis-continuity:-
Old ways - bad, New ways - good. Why? Just because.

Tevez said...

Peter
I wish I had read your suggestions earlier as have just returned from the first of the many discussion meetings which I thought was setup to discuss the proposed change but in fact is simply a vehicle for the diocese to talk about how to pass on the faith (for 40mins) and then look at the video and tell everyone how well they have done and go, thus allowing them to tick the box that says they consulted the people.

What did come out of this is that they are simply making policy on the hoof. The working group which is predominately priests but as they said they have included one head teacher a nun a permanent deacon have still not addressed the plans of how this is to be communicated to the children receiving the sacrament, who is doing the teaching, who is going to teach the teachers, what is going to replace confirmation in later years (other the reconciliation) and when asked what they are going to do they make up an answer and follow up by saying we know it's not easy but it's a plan for change to help make things better - which they estimate will take 30 years to complete. I think that is an estimate on how it will take to close the whole of the diocese down and sell the land.

They two main reasons they stated why they ARE changing the order are
1. So that they can be sure the individuals receive the 3 sacraments of initiation
2. Because they say the current system is not working and the example of that is that the teenagers are avoiding confirmation
because it is not cool
They do not accept the argument regarding empowerment or understanding and appreciation because the sacrament is not about this.

All in all very frustration listening to a church that is not listening -unless they want your help and that help does not conflict with their dictatorship

Still if anyone can give me a good coherent reason why this is good for the people of the church and how it will be administered I will be more than happy to support them. Until then any suggestions arguments against this mess are welcome

Thanks again for your suggestions I will certainly use them