I'm not a huge fan of TV soap operas and it's been a long time since I saw any. My sister used to be big in to soaps so I used to see bits of them in the background but since I got married I'm pleased to say I'm completely out of touch.

However, judging by some of the emails I've been getting (and some of the comments on this blog) quite a few people seem to be under the impression that I have been getting my soap opera fix from the Birmingham Oratory. They seem to think I care about who said what to who, why it is that so-and-so has never got on with so-and-so, who may or may not have driven who to a nervous breakdown and so on.

Let me spell it out for you: I'm not interested.

This is not about the internal politics of the Birmingham Oratory. It has never been about the internal politics of the Birmingham Oratory!  Do you think I am stupid? Do you really think I would get involved in the internal politics of a religious community from 200 miles away based on hearsay over the internet? I wouldn't even get involved in the internal politics of a religious community if I lived next door!

So why am I getting involved? Because the problems at the Birmingham Oratory are not internal...

For  example: The lastest rumour from the Oratory is that everything is Fr Guy Nicholls fault... I know nothing about Fr Guy Nicholls so let me ask you: Did Fr Guy Nicholls pay Jack Valero to act as spokesman for the Oratory? No. Did Fr Guy Nicholls put Fr Duffield on a train and tell him to have his photo taken outside Eccleston Square?

I can't hear you... What's that? No?

Did Fr Guy Nicholls arrange the exclaustration of Fr Dermot Fenlon? No, that would require "either the direct approval of either the Holy See or the local bishop". Did Fr Guy Nicholls arrange for the recent press release on the new provost to come direct from the Catholic Bishop's Conference? No.

Fr Guy Nicholls is a red herring and the real culprits are getting away scott free.

I don't know how many of you are new to events at the Birmingham Oratory in the run up to the Papal visit but it's been a while and it might help if I run through it all again.

It was back in May 2010 that The Tablet first carried the news that three Oratorians had been told to “spend time in prayer for an indefinite period by Fr Felix Selden, an apostolic visitor to the Oratory Congregation”. If the Tablet had stopped there that might have been the end of it - such things are an internal matter and helps nobody to speculate on blogs.

Except in this case it wasn't an internal matter, it ceased to be an internal matter when the spokesman for the Birmingham Oratory picked up the phone to The Tablet and named names. However much he might bleat now about privacy, it was the Birmingham Oratory spokesman and not a blogger who made it a matter of pubic record that Fr Philip Cleevely, Fr Dermot Fenlon and Brother Lewis Berry had been “ordered to go on retreat” by Fr Felix Selden. This is the ecclesiastical equivalent of announcing that somebody has been permanently suspended from work - a very public stain on the reputation of these three men and one against which they were entirely unable to defend themselves.

As the weeks turned in to months some suggested that whatever the three had done to deserve their exile, it must have been pretty serious. Rumours of bullying and possible sexual misconduct began to surface. Friends of the three men were so distressed at the way in which their reputations were being “trashed” that they began to campaign publicly that the three were known to be good holy men a blog was started and an open letter was sent to Fr Felix Selden.

To suggest that these friends and wellwishers were guilty of gossip is outrageous. It was gossip and rumour that they were seeking to dispel.

It was about this time that BBC West Midlands became interested and Oratory spokesman Jack Valero was quick to play things down... “it's just a time away to cool down” he said “they can come back soon and we can continue as normal”. Only a few weeks later Jack had changed his tune telling Radio Ulster that the three “are going to come back at some point, we don't know, it's not going to be soon”. This is the sort of transparency most people would associate with a brick wall.

To their credit, the Oratory did defend the three men and Ruth Dudley Edwards reported that Jack Valero had “confirmed unequivocally that the Three are entirely guiltless of any wrong-doing whatsoever”. Of course, this only begs the question – if they have done nothing wrong, why are they away? Why can they not come back? This soon became the central mystery of the Birmingham Three. Three men, declared innocent by an official spokesman for the Birmingham Oratory yet exiled from their home for months and looking increasingly likely to miss the beatification of their founder. Why had they been sent away in the first place?

More questions began to be asked, like why is the press officer for Opus Dei speaking for the Birmingham Oratory? Things didn't get any less mysterious when it turned out that while Mr Valero is officially speaking for the Oratory he is actually being paid to do so by the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales and reports to Archbishop Nichol's press secretary. Yet more questions were raised about the role of the mysterious Fr Gareth/Sebastian Jones...

Pressure was mounting, blog entries about The Birmingham Three were getting hits from Rome, I had been on the Radio and Ruth Dudley Edwards was writing in Standpoint magazine and had even got the story on TV. The same questions were repeatedly asked: If the three have done nothing wrong, why can't they come home?

Something had to be done and something was, I can't say exactly how much pressure Brother Lewis Berry was under when he agreed to spend next year at an Oratory in South Africa but it's very hard imagine he did so of his own free will. The youngest of the three had the most to lose and with his ordination hanging in the balance the press release in his name had all the credibility of a forced confession. Fr Philip Cleevely issued a remarkably similar press release about how happy he is to be spending the next year in Toronto. It would not be long until the men who Jack Valero said would be “back soon” announced plans to remain abroad permanently.

Which leaves Fr Dermot Fenlon, the last of the three. There has been no press release from Fr Fenlon, no statement that he is happy about being sent away from his home of twenty years at a days notice despite being 68 years of age. So Fr Fenlon has been well and truly stamped on. According to a report in the Catholic Herald Fr Fenlon is being “forcibly exclaustrated” for a period of five years. In the article Simon Caldwell writes that “Under the Code of Canon Law, a priest cannot be exclaustrated for more than three years unless there is a “grave reason” yet Fr Fenlon has officially done nothing wrong. Such a prolonged period must have “either the direct approval of either the Holy See or the local bishop, who, in the case of Fr Fenlon, is Archbishop Bernard Longley of Birmingham”.

And so the questions remain: If there has been no injustice, why not let the three speak to journalists and tell everbody how happy they are with the situation? If the three have done nothing wrong, why couldn't they be present for the beatification?

More than a year later - why is Fr Dermot Fenlon still in exile?

Only yesterday I was talking about the Catholic Voices test of Catholicity - this one...

Catholicity. You need to be a practising Catholic, in communion with the Church and content with its leadership – that is, not angry or upset with Rome or the bishops of England and Wales.

[link]

People are telling me this is a perfectly reasonable requirement because we don't want people going on TV and saying how angry they are with the Bishops.

Er... um... it turns out one of the Catholic Voices Coordinators has done exactly that!

You can't make it up...

"I'm very angry too that this could happen in my Church"

"I'm very angry ... it's about the failure of the bishops to handle it and to allow it to continue..."

"...that's the scandal I think, and many Bishops have resigned, others should resign..."

[link] (skip video to 1:20)

So what happens now? Can Jack Valero be a part of the Catholic Voices project when he goes on TV saying that he's angry with Bishops and even saying that he thinks some Bishops should resign?

Of course he can!

This is Jack "back soon" Valero we're talking about - the man who lied to discredit me live on BBC Radio. Just because he says something don't think he actually means it. 

h/t John Smeaton

Only last week I blogged about the refusal of Catholic Voices coordinator Austen Ivereigh to even express an opinion on the upcoming scandal of Cafod having pro-abortion newsreader Jon Snow chair their annual Paul VI lecture.

I was told that this was very unreasonable because Catholic Voices is on hold while they work things out. Austen Ivereigh himself wrote on this blog... "The papal visit is now over, and we're taking a break while plans are made for next year."

That was Tuesday 26th, on Wednesday 27th this article appeared on Independent Catholic News...

The first of a series of 'Catholic-Humanist dialogues' took place last night between the Central London Humanist Group, part of the Protest the Pope coalition, and Catholic Voices, which was created to put the Church’s case during the papal visit. Some 14 Humanists and eight members of the Catholic Voices speakers’ team met in a room in Commonwealth Hall in Bloomsbury for two hours of discussions on contentious issues.

Catholic Voices patron Fr Christopher Jamison and its coordinators, Austen Ivereigh and Jack Valero, put the Church’s case on Aids/condoms, faith schools, and same-sex adoption. A frank exchange of views then took place, aiming at clarifying areas of disagreement.

[link]

Austen Ivereigh wrote on my blog that Catholic Voices is "taking a break" on the same day that he went out with the Catholic Voices team to debate humanists. Does he seriously expect anybody to believe a word he says?

Just to be sure I don't get sued for libel I should be clear that Austen Ivereigh didn't lie to me when he said they were on a break, I'm sure they technically speaking are on a break. This debate is just one of those ways in which one can be on a break and yet still active - we northerners just don't understand the subtleties of life in London.

Then, on Thursday 28th Jack Valero gave a talk at Westminster Hall which was very much Catholic Voices orientated...

Jack Valero went through a history of Catholic Voices, going over the impetus, the training and organisation, specific encounters as well as what they had learned from the project.

What struck me most was the fact that projects like this can work, and work well. The training and knowledge is there. But what also struck me was Jack's insistence that the whole thing should not be combative. He said a few times that if you go into a debate feeling (and coming across) embattled, embittered and angry, then you have essentially already lost. He stressed the fact that our job is to witness not to win; to bring light not heat. Both direct quotes. An idea which came across loud and clear in the way that CV operates, and in so much that happened during the Papal Visit. Jack also talked about the importance of analysing any arguments presented against the Church to discover what they are trying to say and what the positive intention behind the argument is. If we do that, then we can start to challenge the argument in a constructive and hopeful way, rather than (and this is my editorialisation) throwing things at one another and trying to score points.

The demand on the CVs during the visit was huge, and the interest they got from far and wide was also considerable. There was significant interest from many countries around the world, as well as closer to home.

A book will be coming out in a few months written, I think, by Jack and Austen Ivereigh, talking about CV. It will be a training resource in how to engage in debate as much as anything else. They are also considering how to take the CV project forward.

[link]

A book! So they don't have time to say that abortion is absolutely wrong (Jack Valero doesn't even answer my emails) but they do have time to write a book!

I wonder if that's a good idea, I mean, don't Chatham house rules forbid such a thing?

Jack Valero will be speaking this evening in Westminster Cathedral Hall on the subject "Ambassadors for Christ".

Talk: Ambassadors for Christ, given by Jack Valero, on true and positive presentation of the Church and its teaching, on Thursday, 28 October at 7.30pm.

Jack Valero is a Director of Opus Dei in the UK and 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. Catholic Voices was set up in February 2010 in anticipation of the visit of Pope Benedict XVI to the UK.

The event, hosted by the Young Friends of Westminster Cathedral, is free entry (donations welcome) with refreshments to follow. Doors open at 7 p.m.

[link]

If anybody is going - ask him if being an "Ambassador for Christ" includes responding to possible abuses of Canon law by telling everybody that there's no need to worry, nothing to see here, everybody will be back soon when actually you have no idea what's going on and oopsie it turns out that they won't be back soon, actually, they won't be back for years...

Ask him what he thinks about Jon Snow at Cafod? He won't reply to my emails... Does being an "Ambassador for Christ" mean defending the unborn or does it mean staying friends with the Bishop's Conference at any cost?

Does he agree with Jon Snow that the Church ought to allow condom use for aids victims?

I couldn't believe my ears this morning when I heard Jack Valero (official spokesman for the Newman Cause and coordinator of the Catholic Voices project) announce live on BBC TV that "the Church is not against condoms".

Wow.

Here's the full transcript of the exchange...

Jack Valero: The Church is not against condoms the Church is against promiscuity

Julie Bindel: The Church is against condoms!

Jack Valero: The Church is against promiscuity and sex outside of marriage

Colm O'Gorman: Is the Church now supporting the use of condoms?

Jack Valero: No, the Church is against... er... promiscuity

Colm O'Gorman: In marriage? Does the Church oppose the use of condoms in marriage?

Jack Valero: Well, no, the Church is against contraception of course.

Colm O'Gorman: So it's against condoms?

Jack Valero: But, but, we're talking here about HIV, no the Church is against contraception.

You can view the full thing on iPlayer for the next week (start off around the 28 minute mark).

You can say what you like about TV being a stressful experience and it being easy to make mistakes (I've been there) but Jack Valero is a media expert who provides training as part of the Catholic Voices project! Is this the kind of thing he is teaching them? That the Church doesn't oppose the use of condoms?

That's certainly the view of his sidekick Austen Ivereigh who wrote on his blog at America Magazine that "the use of condoms to prevent the transmission of Aids is not contraception, and therefore morally licit if the intention is to prevent infection".

I'm sure this is exactly the sort of thing the Catholic Union of Great Britain had in mind when they agreed to bankroll the dynamic duo in their latest zany scheme.

Jack Valero's recent radio appearance opposite Ruth Dudley Edwards has allowed me to extend my little video...

"They can come back soon", "It's not going to be soon"

Nice one.

I thought you might appreciate what Jack Valero has to say about the Birmingham Three...

A ha ha... A ha ha ha...

Yeah right.

You keep on like this and your nose is going to grow and grow...

At the Evangelium Conference he was asked...

"But," I wanted to know, "how do you not get angry? I read lots of Catholic blogs, and what I read often makes me angry." And, hey, I don't want to be angry. I'm pretty sure it's bad for my soul, getting angry all the time. It's bad for my writing, too. I've come this close to going mediaeval in my column on the people who, one after the other, repeat the brainless claim that the new liturgical translation will "turn the clock back". Aaaaaaaaaaaaah!

What is it they say... If you're not angry, you're not paying attention. Anyway, Jack replied...

"I don't read blogs," said Jack Valero. This was a bit of an exaggeration, for occasionally he skims, but he said he doesn't (shocker!) read Damian T. or "Splintered Sunrise".

[Source: Seraphic Goes to Scotland]

Yeah right. Presumably it's part of his role as spokesman to the Newman Cause to ignore major media outlets some of which (not me by the way) have more readers than The Tablet.

The whole "if we pretend to ignore the bloggers then maybe they will go away" thing is wearing thin and it certainly isn't working.

Bad news for anybody who was thinking they might be able to keep this whole business about the Birmingham Three swept under the carpet.

The situation is now very definitely uncontainable.

Ruth Dudley Edwards (Irish Journalist) has written about the Birmingham Three in Standpoint magazine. She writes...

News from the Birmingham Oratory, which next month the pope will visit on September 19th, the day he beatifies Cardinal Newman. Newman's old home is now mired in a deepening scandal: this started with the ex-Provost having a 'chaste but intense' relationship with a young man and went on to see three of its tiny community banished to separate monasteries. These three — two priests and a brother — have become known as the ‘Birmingham Three', as a sense of injustice mounts about their fate.

I'll be writing in the next issue venomously about the scandalous way in which these men have been treated, and of the apparent inability of the Catholic Church to learn the downside of secrecy and authoritarianism. But for now I'm just putting it on the record that, in a lengthy interview with me, the ubiquitous Jack Valero of Opus Dei, spokesman for the Newman canonisation cause and the Birmingham Oratory, has confirmed unequivocally that the Three are entirely guiltless of any wrong-doing whatsoever, including, specifically, sexual misdemeanours or homophobia.

The Birmingham Three have been gagged so cannot defend any speculation about them. And speculation there has been. Until now, the main official communication from the Oratory has been a comment that it was 'an internal matter': the laity were enjoined to stop asking questions. But those who know that the punishment of the Three exceeds that of your average clerical child-molester have been speculating all over the religious blogosphere. Are they homosexual? Homophobic? Are they fanatical fundamentalists? Or victims of a political archbishop who will allow Newman to become a gay icon? Since one of the three is my dear old friend Father Dermot Fenlon, late of Gonville and Caius, this atheist has been following events and speculation closely. Quite apart from anything else, events cast an extraordinary light on institutional cruelty.

[link]

You can bully a blogger with guilt trips about how this sort of writing could embarrass the Pope and hurt the Church (because covering up injustice doesn't hurt the Church at all) but you're not going to guilt trip an atheist writer and standpoint magazine aren't going to be bothered if you won't sell it at the back of your churches.

Of course, they could have let the three back months ago... then none of this would have ever happened.

h/t John Smeaton