Can't insert a cigarette paper between the Birmingham Three and their brother Oratorians?

What about between the Birmingham Three and a good chunk of the English & Welsh hierarchy then? Here's a whole carton of them to be getting on with.

P.S. Answers on a postcard for the name of the Archbishop who said:

"We must have unity at all price. If I speak out against it, there’ll be disunity among the bishops, and we can’t have that.”

Here's a clue.....

With Br Lewis Berry off to South Africa and Fr Philip Cleevely in communication with Jack Valero (according to Jack’s interview with William Crawley), when can we expect a statement from them?

A statement of some type must be in the offing, if only to quash speculation, and its contents will perhaps be along the following lines:

My decision to make this statement has not been influenced or swayed by any other party.

Whilst an Oratorian’s home is his home for life, I am delighted to announce that I shall be off for pastures new to pursue my vocation. This is notwithstanding my having rather liked being at the Birmingham Oratory and the Pope being about to visit. This decision has been mine alone and I have not been subjected to any pressure at all in reaching it.

I would like to thank Fr Felix Selden, Fr Ignatius Harrison, Fr Gareth Jones and Mr Jack Valero for having handled what have been difficult times at the Birmingham Oratory with such sensitivity, ability and pastoral care. Their control of the media in preventing speculation over absolutely nothing has been exemplary.

Whilst there may have been speculation by third parties that I have been subject to abuse of canon law process, I can state categorically that that has not been the case and that every care and attention was taken by Fr Felix Selden and others to ensure my physical and spiritual wellbeing at all times. 

Although I am grateful for people having taken such an interest in me, it was unnecessary. The theories of one type or another that I understand have been circulating have all been without truth and I ask that they cease as such speculation is damaging to the Church and hierarchy at this momentous time.

Any questions?

Er sorry……Sorry I don’t think I can answer that question.

Or that one.

Or that one.

Or that one. My, is that the time? How it passes. Anyway, thanks all for coming and what lovely weather we’re having. Got to go now……Bye…..

 

We still won’t believe it.

And what of Fr Dermot Fenlon? Will he make a statement confirming everything is absolutely ticketyboo and that all’s right with the world or will he be given the push into the Oratorian equivalent of outer space? Only time will tell….

We honestly don't know and are scratching our heads. It would be easier to ask what they don't have in common. That however has not prevented someone coming up with a "dream team" of Frank Skinner and the ubiquitous Jack Valero to defend celibacy in a public debate. 

The pairing of a disciple of Hans Küng with one of St. Josemaría Escrivá to defend celibacy seems a trifle odd to us. 

Let's just have a look at some of Hans Küng's public pronouncements on celibacy. 

“Compulsory celibacy is the principal reason for today’s catastrophic shortage of priests, for the fatal neglect of eucharistic celebration, and for the tragic breakdown of personal pastoral ministry in many places.” 

He also argues that there are two solutions to the shortage of priests - “Abolition of the celibacy rule, the root of all these evils, and the admission of women to ordination. The bishops know this, but they do not have the courage to say it in public.”  

Were these the views of St. Josemaría Escrivá? We think not.

Is it just us or isn't there a yawning philosophical and theological chasm separating Frank and Jack that no amount of PR will bridge? Surely there would be room for a debate between the two of them on this issue alone? 

And the Chairman of the CES is another memer of the defence team. 

But heck, who are we to comment on this - we just ain't got that 'blue sky big tent broad nuchurch vision thing'....

Keep spinning……… 

Ruth Dudley Edwards' interview on Sunday with William Crawley and Jack Valero on BBC Radio Ulster can be listened to here (whilst Player allows - select chapter 4). An uncorrected transcript of that interview is available from here. Ruth's update in Standpoint on the issue can be read here.

John Smeaton's blog on the issue can be read here.

Ruth's interview on ITV Central last night can be watched here.

Further news to follow.

The Lovingit Locum Team

 

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

I'm not entirely sure what Fr Duffield thought I would do when he refused to reply to my emails for two weeks. Maybe he hoped I would just go away or something.

It's strange because when I appeared on the local BBC radio station he managed to phone me the same day so let's not have any of that "maybe he's just busy" nonsense.

When I appeared on the radio Jack Valero responded live on air and said several things that I now know are not true. Maybe Jack was flat out lying but lets be nice and assume he was just badly informed.

You might have thought Fr Richard Duffield the provost of Birmingham Oratory would be keen to make sure that any falsehoods broadcast to thousands of people across the West Midlands would be put right as soon as possible.

Fr Duffield was a bit ambiguous on the phone and then asked that our conversation be kept off the record. Okay. But what Valero said on the radio wasn't off the record and needed clearing up.

So I emailed Fr Duffield...

1st July 2010

On the record and in writing, can you confirm for me which of the following phrases that Jack Valero said on the radio are true:

• That the three "asked to go away and pray for a while"
• "they are away now, they will come back"
• "We are working together, so there's no falling out and there's no casting away it's just a time away to cool down"
• "they can come back soon and we can continue as normal"
• "there's no indication they've done something wrong, they've been punished or anything. these words are wrong they give the wrong impression"

Five days later I sent an email asking if he might be responding to me soon. After I had been waiting a week I sent my question again. I've now asked him three times.

So why the hesitation to respond?

Because none of those phrases from Valero are true. The three didn't ask to go away they were sent. There is no certainty they will come back and any talk of them coming back "soon" is outrageous when the Oratory refuse to confirm whether they will be coming back at all.

I'm disappointed because I quite like Fr Duffield. He seems like a nice man who finds himself in a difficult situation, but apparently he's also the sort of man who would rather let falsehoods stand than admit that the Oratory spokesman made a mistake.

When I have said that the three are outspoken but those who remain are a bit more inclined towards silence this is exactly the sort of thing I am talking about.

Three good men are in exile and Fr Richard Duffield is burying his head in the sand.

A couple of days ago I was contacted by a fellow from BBC West Midlands Radio who wanted to know if I would be willing to give the story on why the Birmingham 3 have been sent away.

This morning I appeared opposite Jack Valero who gave the usual nonsense about it being an internal matter - you know, because Catholic parishes are just like McDonalds and the way they treat their "staff" is not your concern.

Then there's this thing about the three needing time "to recover" - that's a new one.

Recover from what?

The simple fact is that if these three men have been sent away over internal disputes, seven weeks should be more than enough time to sort things out and the excuse is wearing thin.

Still, I'm pretty sure I heard Jack say that this is not permanent and the three will be coming back. That's good news - unless it's a lie.

Of course, he didn't say when.

You can listen to it on iPlayer here until 7th June. My part begins at 1hr 35min ish.