+13

Ben Trovato said...

Yes, I agree. Good post - and thanks for the plug as ever.

CAFOD, in my view, has fundamentally betrayed the trust of a generation of Catholics, and until admission, apology and reform are forthcoming, they will get nothing (other than constructive comment!) from me.

NB Typo in para 2 ('world' for 'work')

+

James said...

Typo fixed... (oops)

+

+3

New Friend said...

Unbelievable. Would you actually recommend that foreign aid specifically be targetted at NOT distributing condoms, other birth control methods and providing effective sex education?

Do you not see ANY link between poverty and population growth, beyond that which a country's economy can sustain?

I would suggest that CAFOD, who I admire and know do some sterling work, are best concentrating on what they do best and leave the other NGOs to also do their work. Your views on this are far from universally held and I am relieved to know that most of the funds being directed at these problems are not under your control.

+

+22

James said...

The link between the economy and the population is this: The economy is the population.

No population. No economy.

Duh

+

+3

New Friend said...

Of course, "No population. No economy". Who ever said otherwise. But it is never that simple is it James? Enough people, successful economy, Too few people, or too many people, unsuccessful economy. Everything in moderation, with sustainable growth to maintain balance, and people can live. Get the balance wrong and people die. Creating people to then let them starve is no economy is it? Duh indeed!

+

+16

Chrysostom said...

CAFOD is scarcely Catholic - it is socialist in its main intentions. Why is it spending money given to help the poor on campaigning against the site of the London airport? See Fr Ray Blake's blog for the TELEGRAPH letters on this.

Go to the CAFOD website and put "abortion" into the web site and there is just one match. Type in "climate" and there are 234 matches. CAFOD never says a word against abortion but is working with Friends of the Earth on climate change. Letters in THE CATHOLIC TIMES have shown how CAFOD sent representatives to the South African Global Warming Conference - expenses paid by Catholics in the pew who give money to CAFOD thinking it will help the poor of the world. Do not give CAFOD a penny.
Our Lady Help of Christians - pray for us.
St Athanasius - pray for us
All Ye English Martyrs - pray for us.
St Paul - pray for us.

+

+5

New Friend said...

I thought CAFOD is an aid agency whose sole intention is to help the poor. Therefore it's function has nothing to do with promoting the political, or indeed religious, ideals of your Church, except through witnessing the faith. Whether it should involve itself in the climate change debate is an interesting question but I would guess they have taken the view that this is such a threat to the poor that they are justified in campaigning for action.

If you are not interested in really helping the poor, but only in making sure that they act in the way you approve, then by all means don't support CAFOD. I am sure there are other places for your money.

+

+8

Marguerita said...

There are numerous charities helping the poor who provide contraception and abortion services. Even governments often put conditions on aid payments to third world countries that they must promote contraception or abortion on they won't get the money. Surely we are entitled to have a few Catholic charities who operate from our point of view? Catholic charities serve people of all faiths and none, and don't force them to act in any particular way.

+

+17

Mike Carroll said...

Like I said earlier the Catholic church should stop giving money to the slush funds of 'psuedo' Catholic organisations.

+

+16

Liberal Traditionalist said...

One of the most powerful Lenten sermons I encountered went along the lines of:-

- don't give things up, do something positive instead
- even give to CAFOD if you must but .......
- I can give you the names of a dozen better catholic charities

The rest of the sermon was equally enlightening and I can only hope that the priest concerned allows it to be "recycled" as a contribution towards ecological sustainability in the coming weeks.

+

+5

Thirsty Gargoyle said...

Just to clarify, I didn't say that CAFOD would be going beyond its remit to campaign against abortion or artificial contraception in the developing world.

What I said was that it makes perfect sense for CAFOD to oppose a domestic development if it could be detrimental to CAFOD's objectives abroad, but that it would be stretching CAFOD's remit for it to oppose domestic activities that have no impact on CAFOD's overseas objectives.

The Boris Island proposal could harm the environment and send a signal that it is okay to harm the environment and place narrow national interests over the needs of our brethren. By doing so, it would undermine the UK's credibility as a leader in the global fight against climate change, and thus against poverty, these two issues being inextricably linked, as the Pope has said.

Should CAFOD be campaigning against abortion or contraception in the UK, or against government policies in these areas in connection with the UK?

Obviously, I think CAFOD members, as individual Catholics, should do just this, but should the organisation?

The answer to this must be linked with CAFOD's remit.

1. Do abortions or the use of artificial contraception in the UK have any impact on poverty, illness, or developmental issues abroad? I don't think they do.

2. Does the UK adopt a policy abroad that opposes abortion or artificial contraception? No, it doesn't.

3. Given that UK government doesn't oppose abortion or artificial contraception abroad, could its domestic acquiesence to such activities do harm to its non-existent international objectives by revealing it to be a hypocrite? No, clealy not.

I realise that I didn't spell all of this out in my blog and on the comments, but I'd have thought this was obvious to anyone who read it properly. It's a mistake I seem to be making a lot nowadays. I'll have to learn to join the dots.

+

+9

Marguerita said...

I don't think that anyone is arguing that CAFOD should campaign against contraception or abortion in the UK, or abroad for that matter. The reason that many people do not donate to CAFOD I believe is because it works with or funds other organisations that do provide contraception and possibly abortion services in the Third World. Should CAFOD really campaign against anything? Isn't its job to get out there and help people on the ground?

+

+13

Paul Priest said...

Sorry TG but yet again you fall into the 'equivocate to justify' trap - after this and your recent treatises one might become suspicious that you're advertising your services for the CCN or the CBCEW!

Is CAFOD's remit environmental?

Must CAFOD be unequivocally pro-Life in every aspect of its activities and stated policies?

Which is more harmful to the environment?
An Airport or the 200,000 new universes wiped out every year in Great Britain? [40+ mil p.a. globally]

If CAFOD ever wishes to speak outside its remit - where should its priorities lie?

Is CAFOD proven to be authentically Catholic in its policies and praxis?

Before you set fingers to keyboard did you actually bother to find out who CAFOD are, or what they do, and in what way they aren't doing what they're supposed to be doing and this 'no to Boris Island' is a mere tip of an immense iceberg?

You want to defend CAFOD?
Fire ahead!
They won't care - any accusations against them are like water off a duck's back - they've been up to no good for so long they're oblivious to it all - you won't find them jumping to their own defence; they know they no longer have to bother....

+

+17

Catholic Mother said...

'To say there are too many children is like saying there are too many flowers'. A quotation from Mother Theresa given by one of the speakers at the March for Life in Washington this week.

+

+4

New Friend said...

Catholic Mother

What a daft quotation. Of course there can be too many flowers! It all depends where they are. Put them in one pot, starve them of nutrition and water, and they will all die. Give them plenty of room to grow, with lots of food and water and they will thrive. At least for a while.

+

+15

Nicolas Bellord said...

TG: As regards your point 2 I think it would be argued that UK government does promote abortion and contracpetion abroad in the guise of "reproductive health". Further that such policies do nothing to help the poor - rather the contrary.

Personally I think CAFOD should stick to its core objects i.e. overseas development rather than engaging in very controversial debates about whether having an airport in the Thames Estuary is likely to promote or hinder overseas development. I doubt whether it will affect matters one way or another.

I believe Charities generally should stick to the single issues for which they were founded.

The tragedy of Amnesty International is that it wandered off into the abortion debate. Many people support their original aims and support abortion at the same time. Many others support AI but are against abortion. Why divide your support in such an unnecessary manner?

+

+7

Thirsty Gargoyle said...

Well, I can understand you taking that view, Paul, because you seem incapable of grasping the possibility that somebody might sincerely hold a different opinion from you.

Father Ray's initial post homed in on the fact that CAFOD is the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development. In other words, for something to fall legitimately within CAFOD's remit, it should be a matter that has an impact on communities abroad. Not in the UK. Abroad.

You might think CAFOD is a stopped clock. Fine. Good for you.

But aren't you willing to recognise that stopped clocks can tell the correct time a couple of times a day?

Nicolas, I agree that charities should, as a rule, stick to the knitting. They can achieve more that way than through dividing their efforts between a number of fronts, and they avoid the danger of diluting their support base.

However, as the Pope has made clear, our duties towards the environment and our duties to each other are inextricably intertwined. Given the impact of climate change upon the poorest of our neighbours, it makes perfect sense for CAFOD to act in accord with the teachings of the Church to protect the poorest of the poor.

+

+2

catherine said...

Militia Caritatis Dei:
More Than a “Silver Lining”
By Jon Merrill
The Catholic Church in his diocese having been “forced out of state-supported foster care and adoption services,”the American bishop said, the diocese’s organized charities, as a result of being “less dependent on governmentfunding and less encumbered by intrusive state policies…will be able to focus on being more Catholic and more charitable.”Bishop Paprocki is singing the “anti-statist” theme song of Militia
Caritatis Dei (MCD)…though, since he sings it somewhat reluctantly,
and under duress, it is understandable that he is singing it a bit off key. You see, the bishop’s diocese of Springfield, Illinois, USA, didn’t voluntarily become less dependent on government funding; it was denied that funding due to its refusal to compromise on a fundamental Catholic and natural-law principle. Bishop Paprocki calls the
resultant ability of his diocese’s charities to be “more Catholic and
more charitable” a “silver lining” to an otherwise unfortunate and negative situation. A silver lining?? For a self-identifying “Catholic” organization;
for an “official” Catholic organization; for an organization which supposedly operates explicitly and intentionally as a Catholic organization, “being Catholic” is just a silver lining? (The expression,“being more Catholic,” is, of course, logically and theologically inexact.“Catholic,” by definition, is an all or nothing kind ofthing. Either you are…or you are not. Bishop Paprocki was tacitly acknowledging that, due at least in part to all of that government funding, his diocesan charities were…not.) The use of that particular cloud/lining metaphor is troubling, and revealing.The bishop, like all of us who care about the integrity of the organized-charitable mission of the Church, understands very well – in theory – that that mission is secondary, very secondary, to the only true and real mission of the Church, which is, in a word (or two), “being Catholic.” He knows from the books that organized Catholic charity and the material and spiritual good which it might accomplish are, if you will, only a kind of “silver lining” which appears, almost incidentally, as a secondary consequence of our being truly Catholic. But, in practice, in our well-intentioned zeal to help our neighbor, and in our pursuit of (an often ambiguously or tendentiously defined) “social justice,” he, and we, have gotten things mixed up. It’s “alleviating poverty” that has now become our primary mission. If in pursuing that worthy and ecumenical goal we can also be Catholic, or remain Catholic, or “be more Catholic,” well then, that’s very nice, and so much the better. But, we say, it’s not the essential thing. We now argue that we must not let over scrupulous “Catholicity” get in the way of our primary object,
“helping the poor.” We have inverted the priorities. We have permitted “being Catholic” to become a relatively unimportant and
definitely nonobligatory “silver lining” to the difficult and sometimes dirty work – “the real work” – that we organized
“Catholics” do in behalf of the poor.
Dirty? Well, yes. For example, we explain: Given the current configuration of state-Church-society relations,
we are practically obliged to take “dirty,” non-voluntary, coercively-extracted government money if we are to accomplish
our primary, poverty-alleviation mission (and if we are to maintain an effective Catholic presence “in the
public square,” per our Constitutionally-protected free-exercise rights – which we now understand mainly as getting
our “fair share” of the government bounty). We don’t necessarily like taking the government money; and we
suspect, based as it is on the coercion of many unwilling “donors,” that it is an ethically dubious “fundraising”
technique; and we know, as Bishop Paprocki says, that it keeps us from “focusing on being more Catholic and
more charitable,” but…what choice do we have? It’s a dirty business, but a necessary, humanitarian one…and
somebody’s got to do it. Just remember: It’s for the (material) good of the children. And that’s the main thing;
and that’s what we’re all about.
No, it isn’t. We’ve gone back to the books to check, and we see that it is not the main thing; that it is not what
A sampling of the Militia Caritatis Dei
Pequeños Pepper 5 January 2012
we are all about; and that we do – as Bishop Paprocki has just been forced to discover – have a choice. And so,
MCD is able to sing the song more positively and with more gusto than the bishop:
We are absolutely independent of governments; avoiding even the appearance of affiliation with
any secular state, and rejecting, both as a matter of charitable principle and of prudence, any
funding from governments. We believe that experience has amply demonstrated that it is a practical
impossibility, given the nature of Catholic Faith-denying and even natural-law-ignoring
secular governments, for a Catholic association to accept government money without compromising
its Catholicity.
We sing fortissimo when we get to the phrases concerning “charitable principle.” For, though Catholics
may in good faith differ among themselves over the extent to which the Church’s “welfare” or
“humanitarian” agencies may prudently rely on secular-state aid (or on whether such agencies are even
legitimate), when it comes to an organization which explicitly designates itself a “charity” – as does Militia
Caritatis Dei, or “Catholic Charities” of Springfield – coerced and coercive secular-state financial
support is, as a matter of principle, absolutely out of bounds:
Many modern “charities” rely for their very existence and mode of operation on the coerced,
involuntary, unconscious “contributions” of taxpayers, most of whom (in the American case) are
not Catholic. This is a sham; a simulacrum of Catholic charity. For “government charity” is a
meaningless – or maybe, pernicious – contradiction in terms. True charity can only be freely,
intentionally given; it cannot be taxed into existence. “Catholic” institutions which use this
method of perpetuating themselves are operating unethically (for “a good end does not justify an
evil means”) while perverting the meaning and practice of true Catholic charity. …
It is unethical and immoral to use for purposes outside the proper scope of State action – e.g.,
charitable endeavors – money which has been coercively extracted from others through taxation.
A “charity” which uses financial resources derived through taxation is collaborating with
the partner government in theft. Organized charity is no more exempt from the obligation to be
voluntary – by mere virtue of being organized – than is individual charity.
Goodness knows, if Bishop Paprocki’s recent rendition of that chant melody is not as robust as might be
wished, we do not repine. One gives thanks that a bishop – any bishop, only one bishop! – is even making a stab at
that chant. We pray only that he won’t have to sing solo for much longer. Perhaps, if neopagan American governments
increasingly demand the unconscionable of Catholic organizations, another emergent “silver lining” will be
Bishop Paprocki getting some episcopal company. (“When they feel the heat, they’ll see the light.”) At least
enough to start a little schola capable of doing the chant justice.
For help, the future episcopal schola – and we – could do much worse than listen to a particularly
clear, forthright, and unequivocal rendering given by the president of a popular Catholic news and education
website, delivered in enthusiastic response to the now-we-can-be-more-Catholic remarks of Bishop
Paprocki: “It is never good for a religious mission to be dependent on government. … Any situation in
which the Church receives funding through the government—whether for social services, education or
ministerial stipends—is a disaster waiting to happen for the Church. … The Church must never put herself
in the position of being considered an agency of the State. … When the Church or its agencies carry
on their charitable and apostolic activities with funds provided by the State, they are by that very fact subordinated
to the State in both perception and reality.” [my emphases]
In any case, we orthodox Catholics needn’t remain passive as we wait in anxious hope for the formation of that
anti-statist choir of bishops. “All of us need to increase our sacrificial commitment to doing and supporting
[government-free] truly Catholic charitable work.” And we can also thank, and possibly encourage, Bishop Paprocki
by emphasizing to him and his semi-reformed, semi-government-free service organizations that being truly
Catholic and truly charitable is not just a silver lining, it’s the whole – white! – cloud. It’s what it’s all about.
And, by the way, it’s what Militia Caritatis Dei is all about. 
Jon Merrill is the founder of Militia Caritatis Dei, a traditionally orthodox, catholically Catholic international
charity which conspicuously rejects government funding

+

+10

Paul Priest said...

No Gary - I seriously have no problem with people having opinions different from mine - but I do have problems with people who pretend to have opinions on an issue when they're ignoring the actual issues.

Rather than proffering 'opinions different to' you're expressing 'opinions indifferent to'....

Stopped clock scenario? Nice try but you're not even looking at the clock; you're pontificating on the use of time while it's a few seconds to midnight!

...and bringing in His Holiness in the dodgiest attempt to justify your position when Caritas in Veritate categorically states a fundamental priority towards the sanctity of life which must never be abrogated or dismissed? When His Holiness specifically stated in His Bundestag speech that ecology begins with the ecology of the Human person?

You sound like +Vin!

Tagging on extra-contextual Papal 'approval' for anything; irrespective of the actual issue being a manifestation of an underlying inherent contra-Catholic ideology which has subsumed CAFOD.

It's like the sophist customer in the restaurant arguing with the manager that despite being naked for all but a tie he's following the stated dress code.

Those silver pieces must be piling up. Be sure to ask for a south facing Eccleston Sq office.

+

+9

Caroline Farrow said...

There is room for valid discussion and debate as to the role of CAFOD without differences of opinion amounting to apostasy!

If people wonder why they are not taken seriously, then perhaps they ought to look at their overblown rhetoric.

Calling a fellow brethren in Christ a traitor of the worst kind and accusing him of betraying Our Lord by equating him with Judas displays a contemptible lack of charity and the commentator should hang his head in shame.

+

+19

Teresa said...

Caroline Farrow:
I agree PaulPriest's style is over the top but maybe your response is also rather ranting and over the top. I think it is "overblown rhetoric" to decribe Paul Priest as showing a "a contemptible lack of charity" and to say he "should hang his head in shame."

+

+7

Caroline Farrow said...

No Teresa. It is not. Do you not understand quite how offensive it is to call another person a Judas and accuse them of self-interest or looking to amass temporal influence and betraying Our Lord, simply because you disagree with a non doctrinal viewpoint.

PP knows nothing of GREG, and ad hominems such as these have no place in what could have been a constructive discussion.

It is unedifying and ill-befits Christianity, I repeat - shameful. I suggest that you have a think about how you would feel were you to be called such a name.

Overblown rhetoric which is indeed worthy of contempt and yes, if I were to accuse a fellow Christian of being on a par with Judas Escariot I would hang my head in shame, once the seriousness and inappropriate and hurtful nature of that comment were pointed out.

I have enormous respect for James. It is a shame his comms box gets filled with such uncharitable unpleasantness.

+

+14

Teresa said...

Maybe it is time to return to the issues Paul Priest raised rather than focus anymore on the overblown rhetoric?

+

+10

Caroline Farrow said...

Unless and until Paul Priest desists in unedifying personal attacks to qualify his remarks then his views deserve no credence.

Play the ball, not the man, say a prayer to St Isidore before unleashing unchecked & uncharitable emotions on the Internet and pray to Our Lady to release him from his prison of fury in order that his remarks may be worthy of Christ and thus our respect.

+

+15

Paul Priest said...

Mrs Farrow is fully aware that she has a right to attack me and accuse me of all manner of things...

She is also aware in her own mind that nobody has any right whatsoever to even remotely suggest that she might be mistaken, uninformed, ill-informed, misinformed or just plain wrong - if they should attempt to do so she has every right to use every trick in the book to defend herself.

+

+27

catholicgadfly said...

Caroline,

Don't get me wrong I know that you are a good Catholic but, you must understand that every time you seem to open your mouth you seem so side with the people who are not following the magisterium of the church. You then always tell the people who are trying to defend the magisterium of the church that they are some how in the wrong.

I would not have brought it up but this seems to be a recurring theme of yours. It is as if you can not stop yourself.

Unfortunately you always do it in such a public way, and then you tell everyone on twitter that you are shocked when someone has attacked what you have said.

You need to stop towing the Ecclestone Square/CV liberal socialist agenda and actually think about what it is you are actually saying.

+

+8

Red Maria said...

How dare you suggest that Caroline is following a liberal socialist agenda.

That's my job!

+

+17

Mike Carroll said...

No Caroline, there is NO room for discussion. This is a zero tolerance issue. There is the magisterium and then there are lies and the culture of death.

This is what every person without exception has tried to tell you but you will not listern.

Stop giving the devil ammunition so that he can give pew sitters, and those in the secular society, even more excuses than they have already so that they do not get to heaven, and end up in hell.

What is it that you do not understand about being Catholic? It is black and white. There are no grey areas. EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

James, I do not want this comment removing if at all possible, please.

+

+16

Mike Carroll said...

Also Caroline,

before you say it...

Even if you do say that you are not going against the magisterium of the church (which sometimes may be true) the perception that you are continually giving on your blog, twitter and on other peoples blogs is that you are regularly supporting the 'other side of the argument'.

This is why so many people are getting irate at you. Please wake up and see the reality of what is going on here.

People are not happy when they see their church getting publicly short changed.

+

+5

Clare@battlementsofrubies said...

No Mike "so many" people are not getting irate at Caroline, a small but gobby bunch of you are. The rest of us are watching in dismay and trying to keep our yaps shut so as not to add to the sorry spectacle. Personally I think she's doing a tremendous job.
I suppose It would be pointless asking you to back off and pray for your brothers and sisters in Christ who are toiling in the vineyard, rather than getting your collective knickers wedged up over every perceived error ?

+

+12

Paul Priest said...

Sorry Clare but who asked Mrs Farrow to launch a long-haul attack on spuc and John & Paul Smeaton?

She did so because she falsely presumed that Spuc had been following her twitter timeline; and she barked at spuc that they had no right in their remit to comment on Austen Ivereigh's tweet on the CDF saying same-sex union opposition didn't mean CPs....despite my repeatedly infoming her that the spuc council had made it spuc's remit to defend marriage it still didn't prevent Mrs Farrow contnuing her accusations about spuc's misuse of funds and their alienating homosexuals...

Only once she had engaged in a weeks-long incessant attack on spuc - throwing many wild/false/potentially libellous acusations round in the process - did I say she was wrong to do so and for her own sake she should take down the belligerent blogposts.

Who asked Mrs Farrow to comment on Civil Partnerships or Connexions or the Liverpool Care Pathway?

Despite having a burdensome student and family life Mrs Farrow decided to engage in the heated debates of her own volition & accord and decided to dismiss and repudiate the collective concerns of bloggers & contributors to those blogs.

Only once she freely entered into the discussions to provide her four-pennorth - did anyone respond to her - I told her when she was wrong - providing ample reasons & citations - she repeatedly told me to 'get lost I'm fed up with you' or 'I'm sick of you!' - and when I dissociated myself from her and told others that she was breeding dissent and there will be repercussions for this [ie. long -standing enmity]
...as a reward
I was denounced as an evil bully who threatened, intimidated & gave her sleepless nights.

At every turn on every occasion she engaged in the discussion on her own initiative - except one - when John Smeaton made a generic comment about Catholic Voices' sycophancy to Conference and [para] "can't we have some Real Voices of Catholics not establishment mouthpieces?"

Mrs Farrow decided that this was a personal attack against herself [which is ironic because she persistently claims that she does not speak as a Catholic Voice unless it's official and stated beforehand] so she repeatedly harangued spuc and John Smeaton for weeks with a piece of her mind - and complained to all who'd listen that John Smeaton hadn't gone out of his way to reply to her immediately [even though she knew he was in Hungary]

So please let's get the history straight:

Mrs Farrow never needed to enter into any of these discussions/arguments - she freely chose to disagree with, dismiss, deride and demean other people's positions...nobody forced her to.

The only problem was Mrs Farrow didn't appreciate being told that she was wrong and either uninformed or misinformed or that a certain point of Catholic teaching wasn't 'open for discussion' or that a Vatican directive couldn't be 'contextually positively reframed or equivocated away to mean the exact opposite of what it said'...

...These were all the sorts of things Mrs Farrow didn't want to hear...

So she threw a tantrum, threw a barrage of wild accusations around about everyone attacking her and bullying her and questioning her pro-Life credentials or her orthodoxy.

Now Mrs Farrow doesn't like to be reminded of any of the nasty, derogatory, scathing things she says or does - she prefers that instead everyone remembers a version of reality in which she's the poor defenceless vindicated victim who said nothing to afford such treatment - but let's rewind a little - what treatment exactly?

Well all the nasty bullying she's endured...
Well..by whom?
Oh yeah...by me...
Well...there's a bit of a problem with that because I never bullied or intimidated...she just screamed long and loud that I was....in fact I wasn't even speaking to her while most of her wild accusations were flying around and only once her lies became so blatant did I contact her and ask her to stop and leave me alone!

Yes I will concede in desperation as a sign off I called her deluded and a liar, typing in the 'rude' upper case - because she was delusional and she was lying!

Now - let's see if she's going to scream at James to remove these posts because they offend her?

Mrs Farrow brought all this on herself - after forcing herself into a discussion and grabbing centre-stage she simply didn't like being told by those whom she was telling loudly that they were all wrong - that instead she was actually the one who was wrong or mistaken, or guilty of ignorance or wishful thinking, and that Catholics have to believe certain things and act accordingly...

There has been no direct assault on Mrs Farrow - no witch-hunt or campaign of hate against her - nobody decided to initiate a 'let's get CF just for the sake of it program' - instead Mrs Farrow stuck her uninformed beak in and told everyone they were wrong because she decided they were...and for just this once not everyone decided to let her get away with it...not everyone let her get her own way and say 2+2= sky blue pink because she was a 'victimised' overburdened pregnant lady.

If this sounds cruel, uncharitable and insensitive?
Would you prefer I lied about what happened?

+

+4

Caroline Farrow said...

Wrong again Paul.

I emailed John Smeaton privately at the beginning of December before he was in Hungary. I also rang offering some assistance with a personal project. No response. Others were copied in at the time.

This is just one thing you have got wrong. On this thread you have repeatedly demonstrated your ability to misconstrue both motives and events.

And as for whether or not anyone asked for my opinion - who asked for yours?

You pick up on your perceptions and twist them into your version of narrative. Your bullying was plain for all to see and as you said yourself, it has lost you friendships and respect.

With regards to my posts about SPUC, I was inundated with support for saying what needed to be said. Support included parliamentarians, journalists and leading lawyers. That support continues today. There are people who have been horrified by what they have witnessed and that includes clergy and leading orthodox Catholic commentators.

I know you are hurt and angry but a genuine suggestion is that instead of venting your fury on me, you try saying the office, praying the rosary and reading the Gospels before you unleash these unedifying tirades.

Do you receive spiritual direction? I think this would prove really helpful for you.

All these anger, screaming, ranting and raving, the unstructured streams of consciousness aren't helping you and I mean that sincerely. It can't be spiritually healthy to be so permanently full of rage.

Given my blog so obviously offends you, I think the best thing for you to do is not read it. If the Catholic Voices project offends you so much, why not make your own media contacts and offer your services to broadcasters? There is nothing to stop you from setting up your own version of how you think CV should operate. It might be a more constructive and productive use of your time.

I will continue to write as I see fit. I suggest you ignore it, just as I shall ignore these comms boxes which accomplish nothing other than whip up bad feeling and leave everyone hurt drained and in sin.

+

+4

Caroline Farrow said...

Forgot to add Paul. SPUC were following my feed lol. They even admitted it :-D If they hadn't have been they would not have seen Austen tweeting me!

This was verified after they interjected into a twitter conversation I was having directly with Madeleine Teahan re the MAP after they had C&Ped Austen's tweet everywhere!!

Asserting assumptions as fact - unwise.

As for everything else - you are forgiven. God bless.

+

+7

Paul Priest said...

Untrue - I copied and pasted what Dr Ivereigh said to you re CDF opposition refers to same-sex marriage, not civil partnerships - to Dr Oddie's blog on the issue as Dr Ivereigh also accused Dr Oddie of exploiting ambiguity.

Laurence England also posted the same interaction on his blog - surely you remembered how you tore a strip off Laurence and myself for leaving you feeling violated?

Spuc could readily access it from either source - as well as Dr Ivereigh's feed - as well you know!

Now given you then launched a massive systemic attack on spuc - don't you think it was possible that it was rather THEN that they started following your feed more carefully rather than prior to it?

God bless you too - but it's gravely unfair to rewrite history just because you want it to justify you a little more than reality does.

+

+7

Paul Priest said...

Meanwhile back in the real world:

The issues of LCP, Connexions, CPs, our renegade hierarchy and their relativist Vichyism still remain...

...irrespective of who denounces them.

Remove me from the equation - I'm already repeatedly discredited as a liar, bully and now in Ms Farrow's latest - a sociopath!!!!

So just please address the issues without any concern for me.

Then tell the Church in this country what you think!

+

+11

Teresa said...

I do think some of the commentators on here use unneccessarily aggressive and disrespectful language ( ie "getting your collective knickers wedged up "."Small but gobby bunch") Lots of us are toiling in the vineyard and we are all owed some respect. It goes both ways you know.....

+

+2

Clare@battlementsofrubies said...

Thank you Teresa. I'm doing my best to fit in here. Picking up the lingo...'When in Rome' etc, you know the score. But it's hard when one is as congenitally amiable, sunny and good natured as myself to be authentically obnoxious. I feel I'm not quite 'there' yet, still a little cheerful and my touch too light for this lot don't you think?
I can tell I'm punching way above my weight with the contenders here.

+

+10

Mike Carroll said...

Clare@battlementsofrubies

You are missing the point.

When the magisterium of the Church has been repackaged, re-thought, and falsely interpreted and it is sifted out to everyday pew sitters they take it as the truth and then ALL of that toiling in the vin yard amounts to nothing because it sends people to hell.

If you are a Catholic then there is the magisterium - nothing more, nothing less.

In the present climate in the English Catholic church I also choose to take my lead from our Pope rather than Westminster.

+

+10

Anna-Maria said...

I am all for praying for those working in the vineyard, but I do have concerns if I perceive weeds are being cultivated. Many of us are very concerned about Catholic Voices, and are frustrated when our concerns are dismissed and batted aside. The real sadness of all of this is that (I assume), on here are the Catholics who care deeply about our church, and love the Lord. I don't understand why we can't accept that we will have differences of opinion without it being taken personally.

+

+4

P Standforth said...

Our duties to the environment as stewards is clear. The impact of Climate Change on the poor is not. The assumption in Cafods position is that Climate Change is largely man made, and that it can be controlled by man. Both claims are dodgy from the scientific point of view. Natural Climate change is a fact, and has had to be managed all through history. By putting resources into combatting the theoretical threat and calling for trivial reductions in a trace natural gas which will do nothing to change any climate change, but increases hugely costs of development, and hence reduction of poverty, is working against the interests of the poor. Their case is much better served by addressing the political mismanagement and corruption that is the greatest cause of poverty in both the developed and underdeveloped parts of the world. The Pope is not wrong to prioritise the poor, but he is wrong to be misled by the Climate lobby which does more damage to the poor than any natural evolution of Climate.

+

+1

New Friend said...

I am pleased to be able to agree with someone on here. I think the last post is exactly right. We are spending far too much time on trying to control the uncontrollable when what we should be doing is preparing for the changes which might come. Those preparations disproportionately affect the poor so we need to get active right now. Where I am 2000 poor people lost their lives a month or so back because they built their shanty homes in a river valley affected by a sudden flash flood. Imagine in the future the same thing happening with tidal surges and the devastation will be enormous. Why do they build there? Because they are poor and its the only free space available. They need somewhere to live now, so tomorrow has to take care of itself. This problem is getting worse year by year as the population expands rapidly beyond the capacity of the economy to enrich and empower people to take better decisions. Population growth, poverty and climate change all do relate to each other.

+

+2

Salisbury John said...

The organized charity, scrimped and iced,
In the name of a cautious, statistical Christ.
—J. B. O'REILLY, In Bohemia

+

+11

Thirsty Gargoyle said...

I've not tagged on any extra-contextual Papal approvals. On the contrary, when I read Father Ray's post, I immediately thought of the Pope's recent address to the gathered diplomatic corps, having discussed that a couple of weeks earlier, not least with reference to our duty to till and keep our world.

Immediately.

And it was due to that immediate connection that I wrote my post. There was no tagging on of rationalisations, much as you seem determined to argue otherwise.

As for the rest of your rant? I'll leave it be, save to say one thing.

When I was a little boy, my first-class teacher Mrs Ward prepared me, under the supervision of our parish priest, for my first Confession and First Holy Communion. Among the many things she taught us was how heinous Judas' crime was, and she was insistent that 'Judas' was the worst name you could call anyone. She took the view that it was a thoroughly vicious thing to compare somebody else to Judas. I tend to share that view.

+

+20

Teresa said...

I am sure that Cafod does great work and I am sure Thirsy Gargoyle is sincere and does great work also. However it seems to me that many elements of the church are more concerned with political correctness than with Catholic teaching.
I therefore think that it is a good thing that James Preece and Paul Priest are brave enough to be "a voice in the wilderness" and I am grateful to them.

+

+8

Paul Priest said...

a] Gary you entered the issue defending a two-pronged issue regarding CAFOD - that they were perfectly willing to extend their remit and condemn a non-overseas issue like carbon-emission from a proposed airport; but they would never dream of fighting the internal culture of death; which is hardly surprising given their public conspiracy with its promoters and actuators overseas [a known fact - Ben, Protect the Pope, the muniment room, holysmoke, CatholicActionUK etc etc etc have been denouncing them for years]

b] You justify the first by appealing to a Papal comment; but nonchalantly dismiss the blatant scandal of the second with a flippant and fallacious 'local environmental issues do affect global concerns; culture of death ones don't'.

c] You are fully aware of Papal comments within Caritas in Veritate and the Bundestag address that the Church's pastoral prime directive is defence, promotion and actuation of the sanctity of life and the primacy of the ecology of the human person - CAFOD have been accused [with a barrel load of substantive evidence] that they are guilty of negligence, conspiracy, abrogation of responsibility and dereliction of duty in this regard.

d] This is not the first time in recent weeks that you have swathingly dismissed the concerns of Catholic bloggers and commentators regarding the ideological positions of Our hierarchy and their related quangocracies - The Opposition to Civil Partnerships, the Liverpool Care Pathway, Connexions etc - and on each occasion repeatedly adopted the position that the establishment positions are inerrant until categorically proved otherwise - to some extents you have responded in such terms as to imply there is nothing but wilful intentional dissension as a motive behind the accusations.

e] Compounding this has been your immediate recourse to defend the hierarchy's position without even considering or researching the possibly tenable or valid concerns of the commentators.
Yes we are fully aware of your discourse on Civil Partnerships where you equivocate away the blatant reality that CPs emulate marriage legally and in praxis and therefore scandalise marriage - and repudiate the direct orders of the CDF ['duty to oppose' and state the CBCEW 'strongly oppose' position of 2003 has not altered as the proposed CP legislation isn't the actual CP legislation and +Vin & the Bishops and CVs are allowed to accept CPs and instead of opposing them argue for an extension of the provisions.
Yes that is an opinion which differs from mine - and that is a position one can at least respect as you have done your homework. You may be completely utterly wrong - but nevertheless you have addressed the issues.

f] BUT in other regards you have commented and defended without just recourse to the issues raised or the concerns addressed - this is now another occasion where you decided to interpose a judgment call which dismisses those of others. Perhaps you aren't fully aware that when you declare off-the-cuff that there is 'nothing wrong' with a situation and you refuse to concede there is until it is proven - you are questioning the sincerity and authenticity of those who have raised the issues.

g] I'm sorry but you might think this is a perfectly valid position to take - but this repeated activity reveals a pattern of behaviour - one where you become an avid defender of the establishment position and praxis without any real evidential back-up - and simultaneously [and patronisingly] you are also attacking those with concerns and being quite intellectually unjust by refusing to even consider that they may actually have a point.
This leads us towards concluding that you are verging on sycophantic obsequious defence of the establishment - and one might be led to infer that there is some ulterior motive.

Hence my tongue-in-cheek aside about you advertising your capabilities to the highest bidder as a freelance defender of our hierarchy...with the hint that it smacks of opportunism.

h] Now if you claim to be victim of a vicious ad hominem and scandalous shameful lack of charity - I should ask you to look upon your own recent activity and the way in which you have repeatedly dismissed justifiable concerns of many people...every argument you have produced has been granted the courtesy of being addressed, redressed and countered - something which you have not deigned to do on multiple occasions; instead you have dismissed, dismissed and dismissed.

i] My hyperbolic allusion to pieces of silver and an office in eccleston square was a plea to you to stop being so wilfully obtuse. Perhaps you do not see that when sincere Catholics express grave concern and you suddenly fly in from the ether and declare there is no problem; with whitewashing extra-contextual statements or stating legal positions [of which we are fully aware but we're also aware they're not being followed!] - without redressing the actual issues - you are being both counterproductive and potentially an obstructive limiting force in the resolution of a potential injustice.

j] If you take offence at my comments and fail to realise that it was hyperbolically derogatory for a reason - to shake you from your complacency. If you think I am actually accusing you of treachery then you're mistaken - but I am sincerely warning you that your recent pattern of responses indicates that when you repeatedly dismiss and refuse to enter into consideration of the issues at hand - you are taking the first steps along that path...how you proceed is up to you.

At present we can excuse and accommodate the positions you proffer by appealing to deluded wishful thinking or naiive loyalty or a charitable desire to prevent dissension and ensure the boat isn't being rocked.

But time's running out...

+

+12

Thirsty Gargoyle said...

A few points, Paul.

1. My name's not Gary, as Caroline's pointed out. Can't you read?

2. I don't believe the UK undermining its ability to fight climate change and therefore protect the poorest of the poor around the world is a purely internal issue; on the contrary, I believe this is something of direct relevance to overseas development.

3. I didn't justify anything by appealling to a Papal comment; rather, because of the Papal comment I was inclined to take the view I did. Try to put the horse before the cart.

4. Is it a blatant scandal that an agency tasked with helping the poor abroad doesn't get embroiled in culture of death issues in its home country? I don't think so. In truth, I reckon if it did that, it'd find itself too thinly stretched and incapable of addressing the things it was established to address. It's pretty much the same reason why I don't think the RAF should be tasked with mine-sweeping duties. The Church is huge, and can probably achieve most if our agencies are specialists.

5. I have no idea what Connexions is about. I've never commented on it to my knowledge, save to say that I know nothing about it. I tend to refrain from commenting, insofar as that's possible, on things about which I know nothing. I'd rather you didn't lie about me.

6. I don't think I've ever commented on the LCP, save to say that as far as I can see, insofar as there are problems with it, the problems are with its application rather than how it's supposed to operate. I've not seen any evidence to the contrary, and stayed out of the heated debates on the topic online where I saw at least one palliative care specialist repeatedly pointing out that you clearly didn't know what you were talking about. Again, please don't lie about me.

7. If you haven't been lying about me, but have said what you've said because a) you're deluded or b) you're incapable of reading, then I'm sorry, and will gladly withdraw my request that you refrain from lying about me. I would, however, suggest that you see a doctor, an optician, or a remedial teacher.

8. On the issue of my 'immediate recourse to defend the hierarchy's position', I'd direct you to my long post where I explained how I came to take the view I did on the Hierarchy's attitude to Civil Partnerships. It's quite long, so you might want somebody to help you with it. What you should note is that my initial position was one of scepticism, and that it was only after much reading and much thought that I came to accept that the Hierarchy's line was both consistent and, I think, correct.

9.So, again, please refrain from lying about me. Your false allegations have gotten rather tiring. It was bad enough when you were shouting and screaming at others online, but though that was nasty, aggressive, and thoroughly uncharitable, I feel outright lies are beyond the Pale. I don't like calumny.

10. I never questioned the sincerity or authenticity of Father Ray, who raised the central issue, or Ben Trovato, who wrote a sensible post disagreeing with me. Indeed, telling Father Ray of my own post, I made sure to link Ben's post as well. And I don't think I've questioned James's sincerity. I merely weighed in here to clarify my own position, which evidently needed clarifying.

11. Given that on the four issues you've mentioned I've really only expressed views on two, one of those after a lot of thought and changing my mind along the way, I find it odd that you think you can discern any kind of pattern in my behaviour. Truth be told, I find it odd that somebody who gets my name wrong thinks he can get my nature right.

12. The more I read your rantings, the more I become convinced you're conflating all those who disagree with you into one hydra-headed beast. Possibly this is the 'Gary' with whom you confuse me? Of course, I may be wrong.

13. You may rationalise away your calling me a Judas all you like. It won't change the fact that you did it.

There's a very wise and lovely Catholic on Twitter who regularly observes that one should never read 'the bottom half of the internet'. I tend to think she's right, and never more so than when I see the bile you regularly spill in the comments sections of James's and other's blogs. It seems to be your natural environment. Don't you ever come up for air and daylight?

+

+9

Paul Priest said...

I suppose my personal attacks are ad hominems - while yours are merely constructive points for discussion?

Firstly I concede that I am utterly mistaken in stating you expressed opinions on the LCP & Connexions - that was instead the mysterious 'Joe' who appeared & disappeared just as quickly on here to support Mrs Farrow. I apologise unconditionally and unreservedly - it was a simple error of misremembering events.

Secondly I apologise over the name - a friend with that name is going through some difficulties at present.

Thirdly it wasn't lying or calumny - it was a genuine mistake - I truly believed that you had expressed such positions while Mrs Farrow was expressing congruent ones; rather it was this Joe Character. If you would care to dissociate yourself from Mrs Farrow's position on them please feel free to do so.

In regard to your position on CAFOD - you repeatedly refuse to acknowledge the concerns involved and by doing so - even though you do not doubt the sincerity or authenticity of Fr Ray Or Ben - you question their knowledge & understanding of the situation and opine they are wrong; without addressing the underlying concerns which led them to such conclusions. The accusation that you don't understand the situation and were counterproductive in your dismissive approach - stands!

In regard to your position on CPs I have stated my position repeatedly online and maintain you are wrong on an issue which is not open to discussion given the repeated justifications for the position by the CDF & even Bishop Hines.

I inferred a pattern of behaviour through a simple misremembering of events in which I thought you held certain positions - this imagined repetition of 'dismissiveness' compelled me to consider the distinct possibility of underlying motive - hence my [and I repeat tongue-in-cheek] asides that you'd say and do anything to accrue brownie points. I was mistaken and can only apologise.

Nevertheless on the issue of CPs you worked long and hard to [coincidentally] provide an answer the establishment wanted ; and in your defence of CAFOD you provide them with undeserved vindication. Please God both situations don't come back to haunt you in future.

I withdraw the position I held in previous posts regarding your apparent motives or any perceived sycophancy/opportunist attempts to get a foot in the door - I repeat they were grounded on a false induction of misremembered events.

I don't trust you an inch - so just like Mrs Farrow - I 'd prefer if you kept out my way. I wish you well and truly hope that in every occasion you uphold and defend Church teaching but at present I prefer not to engage.

I repeat the accusations I made against you were false and withdrawn; but they were grounded in misunderstanding not malice.

+

+6

Thirsty Gargoyle said...

Thank you, Paul. Apology accepted.

I neither associate myself nor disassociate myself with Caroline's views on issues on which I've not commented. I simply don't know enough to say either way.

With regard to Ben and Father Ray, I don't question their knowledge or understanding; I merely think that there's another way of looking at this particular issue, one fully congruent with Church teaching. I'm not saying they're talking rot; though on balance I'd disagree with them, I think their points are worth making.

+

+9

Paul Priest said...

Thankyou but I still don't think you're understanding the reasons behind Fr Ray's, Ben's and my comments...and that's my fault because I thought you knew it already and were being an obliging stooge.

CAFOD can say what they bleeding well want about a poxy airport - but that was never the issue - what IS the issue is NOT that they're silent on the culture of death here [which they are] - it's their collaboration and conspiracy with directly contra-Catholic and anti-Life organisations and their perpetual overwhelming silence in this regard - which is well known - together with the activities of their leadership running roughshod over Catholic morality defiantly in public with clerical collusion. Together with this there's a pervading leftist right-on ideology which is promoted at every opportunity to placate and pander to the establishment Tabletista chattering classes.

By your countering a comment on CAFOD on Boris Island & their corresponding silence on non-overseas Life issues - you weren't actually getting Ben's or Fr Ray's enthymemic point - that CAFOD are a scandal - constant accusations that they provocatively advocate contraception and prophylactic provision - they are none-too-reticent to consort & deal with anti-Catholic and culture of death bodies and repeated suggestions that they profligately waste all manner of funds and resources on vanity exercises and posturing sub-political initiatives which are most definitely outside their remit - yet because they're CAFOD they get away with it all - and continually endorsed by Conference and if anything awkward arises everyone turns a blind eye - because it's CAFOD! Even if only the minutest fraction of what's whispered is true it still makes CAFOD a national scandal.

Look around the blogs and you'll find the name CAFOD treated with abject hostility because of the barrel-loads of anecdotal evidence, their own self-publicity and the testimonies of the many that they aren't even Catholic in name only any more - equivocating all this away by saying 'Oh but look how much good they do!?' is no longer tenable; it's a scandal! But once you spend enough time round the corridors of power or the Westminster circle you realise that scandal doesn't really mean much these days...

..and it's here again I have to apologise to you because I sincerely thought you knew all this already and were deliberately obfuscating the issue by attacking what Fr Ray & Ben said not what they were REALLY saying [a back catalogue on Ben's blog will explain exactly what he was saying]
Of course I wouldn't say it outright - hence my faux-accusation that you obviously hadn't researched the issues or understood the situation - and my asides about your being in their pay and hoping to get a backhander or position out of it...

...but now I'm embarrassed beyond all imagining because it's obvious that you really don't know!

So in addition please forgive my sneering and accusations that you're towing the party line and providing defences for those unworthy of them for ulterior motives. I sincerely thought you knew what they were like and were engaging in the normative establishment mantra of 'hey-ho, never mind; pastoral applications in the field are never exactly as moral teaching intended anyway - in the real world we have to compromise and do daily deals with the devil etc etc' and the "doesn't matter what they're up to - when the establishment status quo is being attacked - we pull rank and go after the bastards" scenarios...

[you may have seen it with the Vaughan - or Adamus - or the CES geting caught out with the Ed Balls statements - the reality of a situtation is irrelevant - just attack anyone raining on our parade...]

Of course this makes me look more of an idiot and an over-suspicious oaf than I do already - but I had to state it because a few on here would be reading between the lines and thinking that I knew you knew more than you were letting on and dropping major hints in that regard - so to any third party who thought I was saying that - I was - but am most certainly not now...

I'm sorry but it's the Ivereigh link - makes one suspicious to the point of apophenia.

Last year when the Vaughan parents lost their case in the courts against the diocese Ivereigh basically sent out the message that it was [paraphrased] game over and the parents should shut up now and get back in their box; know their place and be thankful etc.

In your comments re CAFOD I thought you were doing something of the same ilk....my bad...sorry.

+

+10

Stuart said...

Glad I took some lorazepam before reading all this.....

+

+2

Tim said...

Can I have some?

+

+8

Caral said...

I will say as a brand new Catholic, I'm a little disappointed to see Catholics pointing the finger at their own Charities and at each other. Of course the problem with pointing the finger is three point back at us.

I suppose once one has reached Christian perfection, then one is entitled to call out others imperfections, but then if we are have reached christian perfection, then maybe we would want to cover over our brethren imperfection.

God bless+

+

+14

Catherine said...

one doesn't have to reach Christian perfection to exercise righteous indignation or anger Caral. In fact its a moral duty in the face of objective dissent from the magisterium and when persons suffer direct injustices especially at the hands of those professing to act in the name or authority of the Church.

+

+10

Paul Priest said...

Sorry Caral but I just got pretty angry at another attempted whitewash of the scandal which is CAFOD and as I misremembered and thought it was the umpteeth time rather than the second I made an unjustifiable attack on TG's motives - I've apologised but you have to see I've really just about had enough of all this....

+

+6

Red Maria said...

None of us desires or is able to dispute the will of the bishops ... I know that one must not be right against the bishops. One can be right only with the bishops, and through the bishops, for the Church has no other road for being in the right. The English have a saying: “My country – right or wrong.” With far more doctrinal justification we may say: my bishops – in certain concrete cases – right or wrong ... And if the bishops' conference adopts a decision which one or another of us thinks unjust, he will say: just or unjust, it is my Church, and I shall support the consequences of the decision to the end.

+

+11

Ben Trovato said...

Red Maria

Where I find it gets a tad more complicated (and I am one for loyalty, as it happens) is when our bishops seem to be taking a different position from our pope, and from our previous bishops, and...

What is one to do?

(And that is a genuine question!)

+

+10

Teresa said...

Red Maria
I would really like to agree more wholeheartedly with you but I think part of the problem is that the bishops are failing to give a clear lead and this is part of the reason surely why Catholic Voices have to spend so much time explaing things to their own fellow Catholics on blogs etc. I am not quite sure sometimes what the Bishops are saying. Too many statements are vague and ambiguous ( " Who knows what's down the road" etc)
Our Catholic teaching used to be unambiguous and impervious to political fashion - that seems to me to have changed and hence the confusion and infighting .

+

+15

Anna-Maria said...

I agree with you Teresa, but it's even more complicated. It seems that now Catholic Voices have been tarred with the same brush as the Bishops, (in some peoples eyes) and many good and faithful Catholics don't feel that Catholic Voices are speaking for them or giving a clear true message either. Instead of Catholic Voices playing some sort of middle man, we are longing for our leaders to lead us with clarity, truth, faith, and spiritual wisdom.

+