I don't know if you've been following the adventures of "Stand Up For Vatican II"? Or should I say "Stand Up 4 Vatican 2" (so trendy). I've not blogged about them (much) because I hate drawing attention to these people who you probably wouldn't have even heard of if I hadn't mentioned it.

In short, they are a group of the usual suspects trying to bring us all back to the 1960's. They are all terribly worried about the new translation and all the other stuff Pope Benedict is encouraging. They held a huuuuge national meeting in London, only 200 people turned up. More people than that visit this blog every day.

An account of that meeting (saying how wonderful it all was) appeared in The Tablet. Somebody else who was there wrote a letter to The Tablet in response but The Tablet wouldn't print it (for some reason). Anyhow, it's found it's way in to my hands so I will print it...

Dear editor,

In his letter (Lack of nurtured Catholics, 6th February 2010) Frank Regan makes a number of claims about the Stand up for Vatican II meeting which don't tally with my memory, or the detailed notes I took of the event.

First, if Frank Regan thinks the meeting he chaired was a "significant experience of an inclusive church", he needs to get out more. In contrast to the multi-ethnic, socially-diverse reality which is the Catholic Church in the Britain, the meeting's attendees were all white, mostly aged over 70 and in the main middle class.

Secondly, when he claims that those present spoke "without rancour, with love for their church" he is being economical with actualité. One of the speakers, Sister Myra Poole, recently publically compared Pope Benedict XVI to BNP leader Nick Griffin. As an active anti-fascist whose great grandfather was murdered by Nazis in Dachau, I find that comparison contemptible. At the meeting she gave a vainglorious speech, much of which involved her praising herself. When she wasn't doing that she was delivered an paranoid Dan Brownesque rant about the supposed influence Opus Dei has at the Vatican, complaining that the Vatican caused a lot of trouble at the World Council of Churches, insisting that "misogyny is so deep in this church" and saying that she should tell her congregation that if they get anything from the Vatican "they should bin it". That's not my definition of speaking without rancour, with love for the Church.

It's true that the laity were spoken of in disparaging terms as "knowing nothing" at the meeting but such sentiments are a function of the fact that groups like Catholics for a Changing Church which organised the meeting have little, if any, grassroots support in British parishes.

That should surely be the last nail in the coffin of Stand Up 4 Vatican 2. They are an irrelevance and a nasty one at that. Can it be true... did a Nun, Sister Myra Poole really compare Pope Benedict to the leader of the BNP?

From Sister Myra Poole SNDdeN

Sir, — I am deeply ashamed and personally dissociate myself from the actions of Pope Benedict XVI, supported by the Archbishop of Westminster, the Rt Revd Vincent Nichols, over the proposal of Personal Ordinates for those An­glicans who convert to Rome on the question of women Bishops.

I know I speak for many others as well. The papacy has shown scant courtesy to the members of its sister Church, and publicly insulted the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The situation of women in the RC Church is dire, but in spite of that we have run Catholic Women’s Ordina­tion for nearly 20 years, and with some considerable success.

Many people may not know that Archbishop Nichols was the Church’s representative on the National Board of Catholic Women (NBCW) in the 1990s, and it was he who suggested the title of a booklet published by the NBWC, Do Not Be Afraid, on the position of women in Church and society. If only he had taken this title to heart, as many of us have done, women would now be in a much better position.

The details of this proposal have yet to unfold; but I think this action could backfire badly on the reputa­tion of the papacy and the RC Church, especially in England. The idea that this Pope is determined to work towards Christian unity is a myth. This proposal did not come from the Council for Christian Unity in Rome, who, I understand, were not in favour of this action, but from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, headed by Cardinal Levada.

The only unity Pope Benedict XVI and his advisers want is the unity with those who are “right-wingers”, to use a political term. If the Pope had to appear on the BBC’s Question Time, he would get an even worse reception than the British National Party leader.

The question now for RCs who have a much greater understanding of what Church should and could be is openly to call these present actions of this papacy to account in the light and spirit of Vatican II. With others, I wait to see how this situation will unravel.

MYRA POOLE
Catholic Women’s Ordination
210 Compass House
Smugglers Way, London SW18

[link]

So there you have it. It's not quite as bad as the Nun who was operating as an escort at an abortion clinic but it's leaning in the same direction. Do the SNDdeN have nothing to say?

While we're on the subject of Stand Up 4 Vatican 2, don't forget to check out Mullier Fortis' post on one of the ways they operate...

I have seen an email from Bernard Wynne calling for members of the group to send letters and petitions to their diocesan bishops, giving suggested wording. Particularly interesting was the instruction to have about 10 names actually on the letter to the bishop, with a statement to indicate that several other people had also appended their names - and to have these extra names recorded separately. This is, I am told, a popular political manoeuvre, as these extra names have not necessarily seen the exact wording of the letter being sent...

[link]

It's all done with mirrors...

In just under a weeks time I will be interviewing Bishop Terence Drainey, the Bishop of Middlesbrough for the Catholic Herald. I've never interviewed a Bishop before and I've been keeping an eye on the various interviews that have been published lately with various figures in the Church. This week the front cover of The Tablet is a huge picture of Archbishop Vincent Nichols because they have an interview with him by Catherine Pepinster (the editor of The Tablet). I know that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones but I have to say that it is possibly the worst interview I have ever seen.

The full "interview" (if we can call it that) is 2000 words long, yet it takes Catherine Pepinster a full 470 words before she even quotes the Archbishop once. Quotes, it seems, are not her forte. She prefers to write things like "What Nichols seems anxious to avoid is any risk to relations between Catholics and Anglicans in Britain" leaving the reader with little idea of what the Archbishop actually said. If he seems anxious, why not ask him? How hard is it to say "are you a bit anxious about this?" and then the Archbishop can respond "yes" or "no" or "a bit" and we can find out what he actually has to say instead of relying on this lady's interpretation.

I wondered quite how bad it was, so I pasted it in to word and highlighted the Archbishop's words. Here's an overview...

To make the effect clearer, I did a bit of copying and pasting to put his and her words together in groups...

Out of 2000 words only 508 belong to the Archbishop. That's not an interview, that's a lecture.

If you are the sort of person who enjoys train wrecks then you can read the whole awful thing here but if you would like to see real excellence in interviewing then compare that with Luke Coppen's excellent interview with the same man here.

I'm grateful to Catherine Pepinster really. I might have been a bit nervous about interviewing Bishop Drainey but not now. Even if I burst in to tears and he spends the full hour reading a book while I sob uncontrollably on the floor.. there's no way my interview can end up as badly as this one.

I don't read The Tablet because frankly, it's pretty dull. It's like listening to children trying to justify petty theft on the grounds that, well, they wanted some chocolate and it was mean of mummy not to let them have it. The explanations go on and on and round and round in circles in the apparent hope that sheer number of words will overcome the unchangeable truth that they are wrong.

Every now and then though, somebody flags up an article or in this case and editorial that is worth commenting on. This time it's an editorial entitled The problem with men...

Conservative thinkers on marriage, present at the Malta gathering and at a second conference in Gdansk, tend towards the view that a return to traditional values might strengthen marriage. But they have failed to describe convincingly how to put the clock back, even if it was agreed that that was desirable.

...

Evidence given at the Gdansk conference, also reported on page 14, appeared to show that it is the male failure to adapt to the way women have moved away from traditional female roles that causes tensions in many relationships, even leading to their eventual collapse. Rather than live with a man who refuses to adjust, and despite the difficulties where there are children, many women have chosen to become single again. Men are the problem after all, it seems. So the fundamental question is how they can become part of the solution.

[link]

Pretending for a moment that this caricature is true and it is even possible to paint in such broad brush strokes across entire genders - how is it possible men's "fault" that women "have moved away from traditional female roles" and caused "tensions"? You started it...

I remember now. Everything is men's fault.

The truth is, as Fr Dwight Longenecker puts it:

What kind of kooks are these Tabletistas?

...

What they really mean is that men are supposed to spoil them even more, indulge their little feminist whims, kow tow to their ideologies, be bullied by their emotional swings and march behind their bandwagon.

My view? Marriage is collapsing because most people don't know what it is. To understand what it is, you would need to know what love is - self sacrificing, dead on a cross type love. You don't have to be capable of it, but the whole point of the exercise is to try.

The "women going to work" thing is a red herring. Marriages don't break down because a woman expects a career any more than they break down because a man expects his shirt to be ironed.

Obviously there are notable exceptions, mental health problems, when people turn violent, when there is emotional and sexual abuse, when children are placed in danger. But on the whole, in the majority of cases:

Marriages break down because partners expect to have, when they should be expecting to give.

Archbishop Vincent Nichols has written a foreword for a booklet which will be given to participants at a forthcoming Marriage Care (formerly Catholic Marriage Advisory Service) Conference. The following excerpt is taken from the editorial in this weeks The Tablet...

Terry Prendergast put in his place

His message is unambiguous, and may not please some of those hoping to attend the conference. First, he has insisted that the conference is officially sponsored by the Diocese of Westminster, “in conjunction with Marriage Care”, thereby keeping it under his control. In church teaching and canon law, he states, bishops are responsible for the pastoral care of married people.

...

Conference participants “will wholeheartedly learn about authentic Catholic teaching on Marriage”, he instructs them bluntly, adding: “The view that cohabiting parents are just as good for children as married ones finds no place here.” People who hold that view are “inexorably distancing themselves from the Church”, he says.

...

This timely display of clear leadership from the new president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales bodes well.

No wait...

I seem to have misread it.

Archbishop Vincent Nichols was actually writing a foreword for a booklet to be given to priests at a training conference for priests learning the extraordinary form of the Mass.

Here's what The Tablet article really says...

The old rite put in its place

His message is unambiguous, and may not please some of those hoping to attend the conference. First, he has insisted that the training conference is officially sponsored by the Diocese of Westminster, “in conjunction with the Latin Mass Society”, thereby keeping it under his control. In church teaching and canon law, he states, bishops are responsible for the oversight of the liturgy.

...

Conference participants “will wholeheartedly celebrate the Mass in each of these forms”, he instructs them bluntly, adding: “The view that the ordinary form of the Mass, in itself, is in some way deficient finds no place here.” People who hold that view are “inexorably distancing themselves from the Church”, he says.

...

This timely display of clear leadership from the new president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales bodes well.

[link]

So...

It seems Archbishop Vincent Nichols is more than willing to get his hands dirty and use his authority as a Bishop to keep things "under his control".

It's just a pity he only seems willing to do it against a minority group in the Church who he knows do not necessarily enjoy widespread support.

To oppose the comments of Terry Prendergast would be counter-cultural and would involve widespread criticism from the media as well as dissident Catholic pressure groups (also known as diocesan curial offices) across the country.

To take oppose the comments of Terry Prendergast would take courage and resolve, in the absence of such resolve, his move to get the Latin Mass Society "under his control" looks a lot like cowardly bullying.

I just can't believe how "cool" and "with it" the front cover of The Tablet is this week. They are definitely down with the kids...

Rainbow people in a circle around planet earth, it's like the 1960's never ended!

The lovely rainbow people at The Tablet are gushing with praise for Pope Benedict after his recent Encyclical. One of them writes...

This remarkable and intelligent man, now in his eighties, seems to have regained the originality of mind that once made him one of the most innovative voices at Vatican II. Half a century later he still has new things to say, well worth hearing, well worth waiting for. And no stereotype could even begin to describe him.

[link]

Here's a stereotype for you: Ageing hippies getting all carried away with excitement because the Pope said something about global warming while studiously ignoring everything else he's had to say about, like, everything.

Have they even read the Encyclical?

Pope Benedict quotes Evangelium Vitae (When a Pope quotes a Pope it's Pope²) saying...

"a society lacks solid foundations when, on the one hand, it asserts values such as the dignity of the person, justice and peace, but then, on the other hand, radically acts to the contrary by allowing or tolerating a variety of ways in which human life is devalued and violated, especially where it is weak or marginalized."

[link]

Is that not basically the Catholic Church in England and Wales in a nutshell?

We assert "values such as the dignity of the person, justice and peace", oh yes, we're very good at that. Cafod, LiveSimply, Reclaim the Future... Hooray!

But then, on the other hand, "we tolerate a variety of ways in which human life is devalued and violated"...

Archbishop Vincent Nichols with his approval of outrageous sex education materials. Our very own Diocesan Youth Service with it's deafening silence on anything that's not Ubuntu. Most disgustingly of all, Catholic Education Service (Archbishop Vincent Nichols again) with it's arms wide open to welcome Connexions advisors to come in to Catholic schools and help teenagers arrange abortion and contraception without parental knowledge or consent.

I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that the Catholic Church in England and Wales "lacks solid foundations".

Update: Mark points out in the comments (not sure how I missed it) the headline "You can blog but you cannot hide".

Which is funny because while the majority of Catholic blogs are not anonymous at all, the majority of iffy priests and lay pastoral people are very quick to insist that their very public office is a private matter when I blog about their dodgy doings...

In the interests of getting the largest possible audience for their ineffective liberal propaganda machine, the clever folks at The Tablet have asked Fr Tim Finigan to remove his fisk of their article from his website.

The trouble is, Fr Tim just can't help himself. He's a hardned compulsive criminal. Just look at this photo he put on his website...

We should all pray for him.

Anybody who has ever criticised my blog for publicaly criticising parishes and priests by name has a moral duty to complain to The Tablet who have published an article criticising Fr Tim Finigan by name.

From now on I will consider any priest that chooses to distribute The Tablet in his parish to be fair game for blogging, since they obviously approve.

Not fair?

I suppose the difference is that The Tablet are reporting only good things about Fr Tim Finigan...

Haw Haw...

No but seriously, now that you've played the "draw attention to it" card what comes next? The thing about people who are not trying to undermine the Church is that they don't mind if people find out about it.

Unlike those who are...

"Shhhhhh... We're not doing anything wrong or anything but don't tell anybody!"

Looks like Fr Daniel O'Leary came to our very own Middlesbrough Cathedral this evening...

Fr Daniel O'Leary, Fr Daniel O'Leary... Where have I heard that name before... oh yes. Making Everybody Welcome conference. After he gave the keynote speech, a lady asked him when (not if) he foresaw women priests in the Catholic Church. "Women Priests" he said, "are not on the agenda.... Yet." Still, at least he was honest enough to admit there's an agenda.

The Tablet, thanks be to God, has the worst website in the world. All the 'best' articles are not available online (I'm gutted, I really am), we can't see much in the way of actual articles (you have to pay for them) but the blurbs are free... Fr O'Leary provides us with some wonderful quotes. Here's a couple...

"To be excessively scrupulous in trying to eliminate all sin is to miss the point of Christ's example and, as one priest finds, too much virtue can even hurt you"

[link]

too much virtue can even hurt you... ah yes. I distinctly remember Matthew 5:48... "You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect (but careful now, too much virtue can hurt you)."

"Parish priests of great experience understand church teaching. But fragile people need compassion rather than restrictions placed on God's unconditional love"

[link]

Ah yes, of course, "church teaching" equals "restrictions placed on God's unconditional love". I think I saw that in the Catechism once...

Well-known best-selling author O'Leary even features on YouTube where he bastardises the Church's teaching on the importance of family life. Like all the best lies, it has it's grain in truth. Home is a holy place, God is present in all we do. Fr O'Leary, thinks that the reality of Christ living the temple of our bodies and being present in our lives somehow makes our homes more holy than, say, our Churches.

In the first video things are not so bad... It's in the second video that he says this...

We sometimes think that doing the holy things, in the holy places, with the holy people is holier than cleaning up the mess at home, preparing meals, going out to work getting on with the neighbours.

This is not so.

The home is the holiest of all places.

The real presence of Christ in the Tabernacle perhaps comes in a close second?

Because the gap had become too wide between the ordinary things we do and the Church itself. The gap had become so wide, we hardly connected them really.

We did feel the holy things were to do with the parish and the weekend and the churches and the masses. Of course they're holy, but their not the holiest.

Mass. You know, Mass which people have been calling Holy Mass all these years. Well it's not the holiest. My house is holier than Mass...

But its not easy to say. It's nearly easier to dance it or to sing it than to say it.

WTF? How do you sing something you can't say?

Look. Here's something easy to say...

Humanity, our everyday lives and our families can only be considered holy in light of the incarnation. If Christ did not become human and die for us, then it's all bollocks.

God became man. Jesus, Son of God, became one of us. That is why our everyday human activities are holy. That is why we can point to actions like wiping a babies bottom and making the dinner (hopefully not at the same time) and say 'whatever you do for the least of these'. That is why the founder of Opus Dei was able to say "Sanctify your work. Sanctify yourself in your work. Sanctify others through your work."

But our work, our lives, our relationships and our wiping of bottoms can only be sanctified if we leave our homes and go to the holy place. To the Mass, which is not simply a community gathering, a prayer meeting or a shared meal. No. In the Mass we are taken, really, to Calvary itself. To the holiest of places, to the place where Christ himself offers his body as a sacrifice for the world and says 'Take this, all of you, and eat it...'

Our lives, our homes, our families, can only be holy if they are sanctified in the sacraments.

What is it about Middlesbrough Diocese and dissident people from Leeds? If it's not Neo-Pelagian Nuns it's Dissident Daniel.

Fr Daniel O'Leary is parish priest in Ripon. If St Wilfrid were still around, I expect he would be feeling ripped off. Still, he won't be the worst thing in our Cathedral tonight...

Look at him... At least there's no danger of anybody mistaking him for a priest.

It's been a while since I wrote about the survey in The Tablet. After asking about reasons for going to Mass The Tablet asked three questions beginning with the words "I can be a good Catholic without..."

Not so very long ago I saw a comic strip in which a man confessed to killing his wife and asked: "Does that make me a bad person?" It's become a bit of a catchphrase for relativists. "Bad People" are evil people like Hitler and the Spanish Inquisition. I cheated on the test, but I'm not a Bad Person. I stole from my mum, but I'm not a Bad Person. I don't go to mass, but I'm not a Bad Catholic. I'm a Good Catholic.

These figures are unhelpful without some kind of definition of a "good Catholic" and since everybody was left to define that for themselves I expect "a good Catholic" ended up pretty synonymous with "me", because "I'm not a bad person".

Percentage of people who strongly agree or agree by age...

"I can be a good Catholic without the Sacrament of Confession"

18-35	36-45	46-65	over 65
43%	52%	49%	43%

"I can be a good Catholic without going to weekly Mass"

18-33	36-45	46-65	over 65
39%	45%	34%	27%

"I can be a good Catholic without marrying in the Church"

18-35	36-45	46-65	over 65
34%	45%	38%	25%

These questions are badly worded by the silly Tablet people because clearly there are exceptions. Can you be a good Catholic without the Sacrament of Confession? of course you can... if you are six. Can you be a good Catholic without weekly mass? yes... if you are housebound. Can you be a good Catholic without marrying in Church? My friend Ben hopes so, he got a dispensation from the Bishop. If you can't be a good Catholic without marrying in the Church then it's game over for Ben (and so young...)

I'm going to assume these questions include hidden qualifiers along the lines of "if you are able bodied and above the age of reason" and I'm going to ignore the last one because it's stupid.

43% of Catholics say you can be a good Catholic without the Sacrament of Confession. 43% of Catholics are wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. 43% of Catholics have been cheated and lied to by priests who say (actual quote) "You don't need to go to confession, you haven't sinned, not real sins." Oh, that's okay then.

39% say you can be a good Catholic without going to weekly mass. If you can get to mass, then no, you can't be a good Catholic without going to weekly mass. Does that make you a bad person? I don't know, why don't you go to confession and ask?

These answers are depressing. I note with interest the 39% of respondents who say you can be a good Catholic without going to weekly mass. Is that the same four in ten that don't come to mass mass every week?

Relativistic thinking is engrained in our culture. Earlier this year I wrote to a priest about a liturgical abuse and as part of his response he said "But seriously James, there are so many greater wrongs in the world on which to exercise our Christian concern, such as the wrongs of genocide, abortion and war in our world. In the face of such wrongs, I don't think this is a major breach (if a breach it is at all) which need overly preoccupy you.".

But seriously, this argument is false. We need to ditch the relativism. The fact that skipping a mass is not as bad as rape does not make it okay. Our entire culture justifies itself on not being as bad as some other comparably worse thing. This is how cohabitation, divorce, contraception and even abortion become so readily accepted, because I'm not a bad person, because I haven't actually tortured somebody to death.

Priests need to teach (with qualifiers of course, the housebound etc) that if you don't go to mass every week, you need to seriously entertain the notion that perhaps you are not a good Catholic but they need to explain that they are not therefore writing you off as completely evil. To be honest, I think it's time we dropped the term 'good Catholic'. We're all of us sometimes good and sometimes bad.

In Fit For Mission - Church [PDF] the Bishop of Lancaster puts it this way...

As your bishop, observing this forgetfulness taking place among us has been a source of great sadness to me:

• Those who ignore their responsibility to God and neighbour forget they are Catholic.
• Those who deliberately miss Sunday Mass forget they are Catholic.
• Those who never pray forget they are Catholic.
  Those who deny they are sinners and avoid confession forget they are Catholic.
• Those who live oblivious to the suffering of the poor forget they are Catholic.
• Those who dissent from the authority of the Church forget they are Catholic.
• Those who use contraception, IVF and embryonic stem cell research forget they are Catholic.
• Those who use pornography forget they are Catholic.
• Those who have sex outside of marriage forget they are Catholic.
• Those who commit homosexual acts forget they are Catholic.
• Those who exploit their power and position forget they are Catholic.
• Those who cheat on benefits or taxes forget they are Catholic.
• Those employers who exploit their workforce forget they are Catholic.
• Those who have racist, sexist or homophobic attitudes forget they are Catholic.

According to The Tablet, 43% of Catholics forget they are Catholic. Looking at that list, I reckon all of us forget at times. I wonder when our Priests are going to start reminding us.

Not so very long ago I blogged about a recent survey in The Tablet. The survey was carried out in Churches so the respondents must have been to mass at least once. After asking people about their Another question asked people their reasons for going to mass...

To express my commitment to God - 64%
It gives me strength to carry on in everyday life - 55%
I was brought up this way - 52%
To receive the Holy Sacrament as "food for the journey" - 48%
To pray for loved ones who are deceased - 44%
To repent of my sins - 37%
To ask for various things in prayer - 36%
To feel a part of the community - 36%

Notice: Only 36% of people said "to feel a part of the community" was a reason they go to mass. People don't go to mass to be part of the community. I don't go to mass to be part of the community. Think about it, why do people go to football matches? To watch football. I'm sure that people who regularly go to football matches build up a great community and often join each other in the pub after the game, but I'm pretty sure 25,000 people wouldn't descend on Walton Street every Saturday if Hull City decided to downplay the sporting aspect and emphaise the importance of community. People go for the football and a community builds around it.

It's the same story with mass. People go "to express [their] commitment to God" and a community develops around it like trees grow around streams of water. Communities develop among people who happen to live in the same place, or work in the same office or support the same team. Anybody who thinks community is going to exist for the sake of community is seriously misguided.

So what is important about mass. Asked to rate the most important aspects of mass, people said:

Receiving Holy Communion - 75%
Feeling the presence of God - 68%
Prayer and reflection - 61%
Sign of peace - 46%
Sermon - 42%
Readings - 43%
Music - 29%

Apart from the sign of peace (which is overrated) I think it's fair to say that people know what's important about the mass. I was going to nitpick about how I might have said the readings are more important than the sermon but then I noticed people actually have said the readings are more important and the stupid Tablet people just can't put things in numerical order.

Notice where music is. It's at the bottom. People think music is less important than receiving Holy Communion, less important than prayer, the sermon (in Jamesland we call that the homily) and readings. Music is even less important than the sign of peace. Think about that. It means that every promise of music as saviour is a false promise. "If only the music were louder/quicker/happier/bouncier/etc then more young people would come to mass" No. They wouldn't.

People have rated music pretty low. Only 29% of people say it's an important part of mass while 75% say receiving Holy Communion is an important part. Music is not going to attract young people to mass. The Eucharist is.