Pope Benedict's Visit: State? or Pastoral?

Today over at the Catholic Herald site, Luke Coppen writes a leading article concerning the papal visit in September suggesting that it ought to be removed from the political football that it has become to a pastoral visit for Catholics. What do you the readers think? He writes,

The ridiculous insults directed at the Holy Father by Foreign Office officials raise fundamental questions about the papal visit to Britain in September. The Vatican has decided that Pope Benedict will proceed with the trip; but it is under no illusions about the gravity of the situation.

The memo, which proposed that the Pope should launch his own brand of condoms and open an abortion clinic, was more than a schoolboy parody intended for internal consumption. While the authors did not expect the proposals to be taken seriously, their intention to mock Catholic teaching was perfectly genuine. Apologies have been issued, but the question remains: how can Britain stage a successful state visit when the civil servants organising it exhibit ignorant hostility towards the Pontiff?

This newspaper believes that a state visit will be very difficult to arrange successfully, and not just because the Foreign Office has compromised its professional standards. The event has become a political football: in the second leaders' debate, Messrs Brown, Cameron and Clegg all welcomed it but expressed disagreement with Catholic teaching. Moreover, the fact that this would be the first state visit to Britain by a Pope - John Paul II made a purely pastoral visit in 1982 - means that the taxpayer will foot much of the bill. Secularists, backed by the media, can therefore complain that their money is being used to celebrate an organisation they loathe (though Catholics also pay taxes). Their plans to disrupt the occasion are already advanced.

There is one relatively simple route out of this minefield, and that is to make the Pope's visit a pastoral rather than a state one. After all, its main focus - the beatification of John Henry Newman - is primarily a Catholic event; and one could argue that, by offering his pastoral guidance to an embattled Church, the Holy Father will achieve far more than by taking part in a state-funded public relations exercise. We hope it is not too late for the organisers of the visit to consider a radically different course of action better suited to these disturbing times.

Is There Hope for Catholics in These Trying Days?

I believe the answer to this question is a resounding Yes! First of all, it is a "yes" to all of our faithful deacons, priests and bishops and those in religious life. Thank you to all of you for your service in what is proving to be a very difficult time for the Church. There is undoubtedly a lot of pressure on priests and a lot of hostility towards Catholics in the West at the moment. This is clearly seen in the media and the recent events of the past several weeks. Some of this frustration and anger is very understandable regarding the abuse scandal. We have to live through this time when the Church suffers a blow like this but not lose heart or hope. The Church is filled with sinners who need grace and forgiveness, healing and wholeness. Our priests are no different.

Two nights ago I was reading Pope Benedict XVI's addresses in his book Priests of Jesus Christ and was providentially in a chapter where his words came at a much-needed time for me as I thought about all that was happening. I think the words below might also be useful to the readers here. It is so important that we not lose hope. The Book of Revelation is a book about hope as the Church experiences suffering even when it is due to the failures of those within her. I pray that the following words are helpful to all readers:

We have 2,000 years of the Church's history with so much suffering and even so many failures: let us think of the Church in Asia Minor and the great flourishing Church in North Africa which disappeared with the Muslim invasion. Thus, parts of the Church can truly disappear, as St. John-or the Lord through St. John-said in the Book of Revelation: 'I will come to you and remove your lamp stand from its place, unless you repent.' (2:5). But, on the other hand, we perceive how the Church has re-emerged from so many crisis with new youth, with new freshness.

Actually, in the century of the Reformation, the Catholic Church seemed almost to have come to her end. This new current which declared: 'Now the Church of Rome is finished,' seemed to triumph. And we see that with the great saints, such as Ignatius of Loyola, Teresa of Avila, Charles Borromeo and others, that the Church was resurrected. In the Council of Trent, she found a new actualization and the revitalization of her doctrine. And she lived again with great vitality. Let us look at the age of the Enlightenment, when Voltaire said: 'At last this ancient Church is dead, humanity is alive!' And instead, what happens? The Church is renewed...

Even in difficult times when there is a shortage of vocations, the Word of the Lord lives for ever. And he who, as the Lord himself said, builds his life on this 'rock' of the Word of Christ, builds it well. Therefore, we can be confident. We also see new initiatives of faith in our day. We see that Africa, despite all her problems, the Church has fresh new vocations, which is encouraging.

Thus, with all the differences of the historical prospect of today, we see-and not only see but believe-that the words of the Lord are spirit and life, they are words of eternal life. St. Peter said, as we heard last Sunday in the Gospel: 'You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know that you are the Holy One of God' (Jn 6:68-69). And in looking at the Church's vitality, and we ourselves can also say: we have believed and have come to know that you offer us the words of eternal life, hence, a never-failing hope.

These words brought me great comfort this week. Even though we face these difficult times, the Marxist trend that the Church is finished will continue to prove wrongheaded and a renewed life for the Church will emerge from these difficult moments in our life. These times of great challenge and refocusing on our 'First Love' is actually what the Lord knows is needed from each and every Catholic around the world. Spiritual inventory is needed and is happening as the Spirit penetrates each and every individual heart beckoning us to return to our 'First Love'. More difficult times could be ahead but know that these times will produce a pruned tree that will flourish once again with the beauty it has always possessed. Today calls for an embrace of our never-failing hope in Christ's life.

For the FCO On Real Humour for Their Penance

I think it really is important to move on from the sad attempt at humour by the FCO employee. Obviously his Oxbridge education didn't teach him about humour. I had remembered an essay this morning on humour by G.K. Chesterton that he and the entire staff ought to be made to read as a part of their penance. Chesterton writes,

Nevertheless there clings to the word Humour, especially when balanced against the word Wit, a sort of tradition or atmosphere that belongs to the old eccentrics whose eccentricity was always wilful and not infrequently blind. The distinction is a fine one; but one of the elements remaining in this blend is a certain sense of being laughed at, as well as of laughing. It involves some confession of human weakness; whereas wit is rather the human intellect exerting its full strength, though perhaps upon a small point. Wit is reason on its judgment seat; and though the offenders may be touched lightly, the point is that the judge is not touched at all. But humour always has in it some idea of the humorist himself being at a disadvantage and caught in the entanglements and contradictions of human life. It is a grave error to underrate Wit as something trivial; for certain purposes of satire it can truly be the sword of the spirit, and the satirist bears not the sword in vain. But it is essential to wit that he should bear the sword with ease; that for the wit the weapon should be light if the blow be heavy; that there should be no question of his being encumbered with his instrument or laying open his guard. But humour can be of the finest and yet lay open the guard or confess its inconsistency. When Voltaire said, commenting on the judicial murder of Byng, "In England they kill one Admiral to encourage the others," it would immediately be recognized as humour. But we rightly class Voltaire as a wit, because he represents the consistent human reason detesting an inconsistency. We shall be very wrong if we despise him as a wit, for that French clearness has depths of irony; there is, for instance, more than is seen at a glance in the very word `encourage'. But it is true that the wit is here a judge independent of the judges, unaffected by the King or the Admiral or the English Courtmartial or the mob. He is abstract justice recording a contradiction. But when Falstaff (a model of the humorist become or becoming conscious) cries out in desperate bravado, "They hate us youth," the incongruity between the speech and the corpulent old humbug of a speaker is present to his own mind, as well as to ours. He also discovers a contradiction, but it is in himself; for Falstaff really did bemuse himself with youthful companionship which he knew to be like a drug or a dream; and indeed Shakespeare himself, in one at least of the Sonnets, becomes bitterly conscious of the same illusion. There is therefore in humour, or at least in the origins of humour, something of this idea of the eccentric caught in the act of eccentricity and brazening it out; something of one surprised in disarray and become conscious of the chaos within. Wit corresponds to the divine virtue of justice, in so far as so dangerous a virtue can belong to man. Humour corresponds to the human virtue of humility and is only more divine because it has, for the moment, more sense of the mysteries.

If there be so much of enlightenment to be gathered from the history of the word, there is very little to be gathered from any of the attempts at a scientific history of the thing. The speculations on the nature of any reaction to the risible belong to the larger and more elementary subject of Laughter and are for the department of psychology; according to some, almost for that of physiology. Whatever be their value touching the primitive function of laughter, they throw very little light on the highly civilized product of humour. It may well be questioned whether some of the explanations are not too crude even for the crudest origins; that they hardly apply even to the savage and certainly do not apply to the child. It has been suggested, for example, that all laughter had its origin in a sort of cruelty, in an exultation over the pain or ignominy of an enemy; but it is very hard even for the most imaginative psychologist to believe that, when a baby bursts out laughing at the image of the cow jumping over the moon, he is really finding pleasure in the probability of the cow breaking her leg when she comes down again. The truth is that all these primitive and prehistoric origins are largely unknown and possibly unknowable; and like all the unknown and unknowable are a field for furious wars of religion. Such primary human causes will always be interpreted differently according to different philosophies of human life. Another philosophy would say, for instance, that laughter is due not to an animal cruelty but to a purely human realization of the contrast between man's spiritual immensity within and his littleness and restriction without, for it is itself a joke that a house should be larger inside than out. According to such a view, the very incompatability between the sense of human dignity and the perpetual possibility of incidental indignities, produces the primary or archetypal joke of the old gentleman sitting down suddenly on the ice. We do not laugh thus when a tree or a rock tumbles down; because we do not know the sense of self-esteem or serious importance within. But such speculations in psychology, especially in primitive psychology, have very little to do with the actual history of comedy as an artistic creation.

There is no doubt that comedy existed as an artistic creation many thousands of years ago, in the case of peoples whose life and letters we can sufficiently understand to appreciate the fine shades of meaning; especially, of course, in the case of the Greeks. It is difficult for us to say how far it existed in civilizations more remote of which the records are for us more stiff and symbolic; but the very limitation of symbolism which makes it hard for us to prove its existence should warn us against assuming without evidence that it did not exist. We know more about Greek humour than about Hittite humour, at least partly for the simple reason that we know Greek better than we know any sort of colloquial Hittite; and while what applies to Hittite applies too in a less degree to Hebrew, a case like that of early Hebrew presents something of the same problem of limitation. But without any attempts to settle such problems of scholarship, it is hard to believe that the highest sense of human satire was not present in the words of Job. "Truly you are wise and wisdom will die with you"; or that no perception of a poetic contrast was felt by so great a poet when he said of Behemoth, commonly identified with the hippopotamus; "Canst thou play with him as with a bird?" It is probable that the Chinese civilization, in which the quality of the quaint and the fantastic has flowered with a beautiful luxuriance for many centuries, could also quote fairly early examples of the same order of fancy.

In any case, humour is in the very foundations of our European literature, which alone is quite sufficiently a part of ourselves for the full appreciation of so subtle and sometimes sub-conscious a quality. Even a schoolboy can see it in such scenes of Aristophanes as that in which the dead man sits up in indignation at having to pay the toll of the Styx, and says he would rather come to life again; or when Dionysus asks to see the wicked in hell and is answered by a gesture pointing at the audience. Before the period of intellectual controversies in Athens, indeed, we generally find in Greek poetry, as in the greater part of all human folk lore, that the joke is a practical joke. To a robust taste, however, it is none the less of a joke for that. For the joke of Odysseus calling himself Noman is not, as some suppose, a sort of trivial pun or verbalism; the joke is in the gigantic image of the raging Cyclops, roaring as if to rend the mountains, after being defeated by something so simple and so small. And this example is worth noting; as representing what is really the fun of all the fairy-tales; the notion of something apparently omnipotent made impotent by some tiny trick. This fairy-tale idea is undoubtedly one of the primitive fountains from which flows the long winding stream of historic humour. When Puss in Boots persuades the boastful magician to turn into a mouse and be eaten, it almost deserves to be called wit.

After these two early expressions, the practical joke of the folk-tale and the more philosophic fun of the Old Comedy, the history of humour is simply the history of literature. It is especially the history of European literature; for this sane sense of the incongruous is one of the highest qualities balancing the European spirit. It would be easy to go through the rich records of every nation and note this element in almost every novel or play, and in not a few poems or philosophical works. There is naturally no space for such a survey; but three great names, one English, one French and a third Spanish, may be mentioned for their historical quality; since they opened new epochs and even their few superiors were still their followers. The first of these determining names is that of Chaucer, whose urbanity has done something to conceal his real originality. Medieval civilization had a very powerful sense of the grotesque, as is apparent in its sculpture alone; but it was in a sense a fighting sentiment; it dealt with dragons and devils; it was alive, but it was very decidedly kicking. Chaucer brought into this atmosphere a cool air of true comedy; a sort of incongruity most incongruous in that world. In his personal sketches we have a new and very English element, of at once laughing at people and liking them. The whole of humorous fiction, if not the whole of fiction, dates from the Prologue of the Canterbury Tales. Rather later, Rabelais opened a new chapter by showing that intellectual things could be treated with the energy of high spirits and a sort of pressure of physical exuberance, which was itself humorous in its very human abandon. He will always be the inspiration of a certain sort of genial impatience; and the moments when the great human mind boils over like a pot. The Renaissance itself was, of course, such a boiling, but the elements were some of them more poisonous; though a word should be said for the tonics of that time, the humour of Erasmus and of More. Thirdly, there appeared with the great Cervantes an element new in its explicit expression; that grand and very Christian quality of the man who laughs at himself. Cervantes was himself more chivalrous than most men when he began to mock at chivalry. Since his time, humour in this purely humorous sense, the confession of complexity and weakness already remarked upon, has been a sort of secret of the high culture of the West. The influence of Cervantes and Rabelais, and the rest runs through all modern letters, especially our own; taking on a shrewd and acid tang in Swift, a more delicate and perhaps more dubious taste in Sterne, passing on through every sort of experiment of essay or comedy, pausing upon the pastoral gaiety of Goldsmith or going on finally to bring forth, like a great birth of giants, the walking caricatures of Dickens. Nor is it altogether a national accident that the tradition has here been followed in our own nation. For it is true that humour, in the special and even limited sense here given to it, humour as distinct from wit, from satire, from irony or from many things that may legitimately produce amusement, has been a thing strongly and specially present in English life and letters. That we may not in turn depreciate the wit and logic of the rest of the world, it will be well to remember that humour does originate in the half-conscious eccentric, that it is in part a confession of inconsistency, but, when all is said, it has added a new beauty to human life. It may even be noted that there has appeared especially in England a new variety of humour, more properly to be called Nonsense. Nonsense may be described as humour which has for the moment renounced all connection with wit. It is humour that abandons all attempt at intellectual justification; and does not merely jest at the incongruity of some accident or practical joke, as a by-product of real life, but extracts and enjoys it for its own sake.

Jabberwocky is not a parody on anything; the Jumblies are not a satire on anybody; they are folly for folly's sake on the same lines as art for art's sake, or more properly beauty for beauty's sake; and they do not serve any social purpose except perhaps the purpose of a holiday. Here again it will be well to remember that even the work of humour should not consist entirely of holidays. But this art of nonsense is a valuable contribution to culture; and it is very largely, or almost entirely, an English contribution. So cultivated and competent a foreign observer as M. Emile Cammaerts has remarked that it is so native as to be at first quite unmeaning to foreigners. This is perhaps the latest phase in the history of humour; but it will be well even in this case to preserve what is so essential a virtue of humour; the virtue of proportion. Humour, like wit, is related however indirectly, to truth and the eternal virtues; as it is the greatest incongruity of all to be serious about humour, so it is the worst sort of pomposity to be monotonously proud of humour; for it is itself the chief antidote to pride; and has been, ever since the time of the Book of Proverbs, the hammer of fools.

Encyclopaedia Britannica. Written May 1928.

Chesterton, G.K. The Spice of Life and Other Essays. Edited by Dorothy Collins. Beaconsfield: Darwen Finlayson, 1964.

All Catholics Should Be Utterly Offended

Reading the paper before Mass is not a good way of preparation. That is not how I prepare, but it is usually how I drink my morning coffee. There is no decent picture that I could add to mark this story so I offer it without one. The story in this morning's Telegraph is so shameful and embarrassing for this government that words do not begin to explain the utter shocking level of the infantile behaviour. I am so sorry that the Holy Father has to put up with such ridiculous mean-spirited behaviour from such ill-intentioned people. What was shocking to me was the reassignment of those involved rather than something more severe. But, in a government of inequality that we are presently living under it is no surprise really. I wonder if a Catholic will be given the opportunity to ask the three candidates about this at the next election debate as the question about their view of the Pope's visit to Britain last week and his Catholic teaching! We will see...To mock the Pope like this is to mock every single Catholic in the country and I believe every single Catholic in this country ought to let #10 know how offended we are this week! Give the article a read for yourself and take a look at the actual memo that the Telegraph provides--amazing! A portion from the article in the Telegraph reads,

The proposals, which were then circulated among key officials in Downing Street and Whitehall, also include the Pope opening an abortion ward; spending the night in a council flat in Bradford; doing forward rolls with children to promote healthy living; and even performing a duet with the Queen.

In reference to the hugely sensitive issue of child abuse engulfing the Catholic Church, the Government document suggests that the Pope should take a “harder line on child abuse – announce sacking of dodgy bishops” and “launch helpline for abused children”.

The document was sent out by a junior Foreign Office civil servant with a covering note admitting that some of the plans were “far-fetched”.

I realise that this could be the immaturity of some young member of the Foreign Office but in the recent developments on the media's attacks on the HF, one would expect a bit more maturity coming from the Foreign Office in preparation for the Pope's visit. In addition to the outrage of the memo it must be very embarrassing for our government to have such ridiculous nonsense coming from this government's civil servants. Is there an anti-Catholic bias in the media and government? Let the reader understand...

Bishops of England and Wales Public Statement on Abuse

Child abuse in the Catholic Church has been such a focus of public attention recently, that we, the Bishops of England and Wales, wish to address this issue directly and unambiguously.

Catholics are members of a single universal body. These terrible crimes, and the inadequate response by some church leaders, grieve us all.

Our first thoughts are for all who have suffered from the horror of these crimes, which inflict such severe and lasting wounds. They are uppermost in our prayer. The distress we feel at what has happened is nothing in comparison with the suffering of those who have been abused.

The criminal offences committed by some priests and religious are a profound scandal. They bring deep shame to the whole church. But shame is not enough. The abuse of children is a grievous sin against God. Therefore we focus not on shame but on our sorrow for these sins. They are the personal sins of only a very few. But we are bound together in the Body of Christ and, therefore, their sins touch us all.

We express our heartfelt apology and deep sorrow to those who have suffered abuse, those who have felt ignored, disbelieved or betrayed. We ask their pardon, and the pardon of God for these terrible deeds done in our midst. There can be no excuses.

Furthermore, we recognise the failings of some Bishops and Religious leaders in handling these matters. These, too, are aspects of this tragedy which we deeply regret and for which we apologise. The procedures now in place in our countries highlight what should have been done straightaway in the past. Full co-operation with statutory bodies is essential.

Now, we believe, is a time for deep prayer of reparation and atonement. We invite Catholics in England and Wales to make the four Fridays in May 2010 special days of prayer. Even when we are lost for words, we can place ourselves in silent prayer. We invite Catholics on these days to come before the Blessed Sacrament in our parishes to pray to God for healing, forgiveness and a renewed dedication. We pray for all who have suffered abuse; for those who mishandled these matters and added to the suffering of those affected. From this prayer we do not exclude those who have committed these sins of abuse. They have a journey of repentance and atonement to make.

We pray also for Pope Benedict, whose wise and courageous leadership is so important for the Church at this time.

In our dioceses we will continue to make every effort, working with our safeguarding commissions, to identify any further steps we can take, especially concerning the care of those who have suffered abuse, including anyone yet to come forward with their account of their painful and wounded past. We are committed to continuing the work of safeguarding, and are determined to maintain openness and transparency, in close co-operation with the statutory authorities in our countries. We thank the thousands who give generously of their time and effort to the Church’s safeguarding work in our parishes and dioceses.

We commit ourselves afresh to the service of children, young people and the vulnerable in our communities. We have faith and hope in the future. The Catholic Church abounds in people, both laity, religious and clergy, of great dedication, energy and generosity who serve in parishes, schools, youth ventures and the care of elderly people. We also thank them. The Holy Spirit guides us to sorrow and repentance, to a firm determination to better ways, and to a renewal of love and generosity towards all in need.

An Open Letter to Hans Kung by George Weigel

I think this is how it is done! First Things Blog

Dr. Küng:

A decade and a half ago, a former colleague of yours among the younger progressive theologians at Vatican II told me of a friendly warning he had given you at the beginning of the Council’s second session. As this distinguished biblical scholar and proponent of Christian-Jewish reconciliation remembered those heady days, you had taken to driving around Rome in a fire-engine red Mercedes convertible, which your friend presumed had been one fruit of the commercial success of your book, The Council: Reform and Reunion.

This automotive display struck your colleague as imprudent and unnecessarily self-advertising, given that some of your more adventurous opinions, and your talent for what would later be called the sound-bite, were already raising eyebrows and hackles in the Roman Curia. So, as the story was told me, your friend called you aside one day and said, using a French term you both understood, “Hans, you are becoming too evident.”

As the man who single-handedly invented a new global personality-type—the dissident theologian as international media star—you were not, I take it, overly distressed by your friend’s warning. In 1963, you were already determined to cut a singular path for yourself, and you were media-savvy enough to know that a world press obsessed with the man-bites-dog story of the dissenting priest-theologian would give you a megaphone for your views. You were, I take it, unhappy with the late John Paul II for trying to dismantle that story-line by removing your ecclesiastical mandate to teach as a professor of Catholic theology; your subsequent, snarling put-down of Karol Wojtyla’s alleged intellectual inferiority in one volume of your memoirs ranked, until recently, as the low-point of a polemical career in which you have become most evident as a man who can concede little intelligence, decency, or good will in his opponents.

I say “until recently,” however, because your April 16 open letter to the world’s bishops, which I first read in the Irish Times, set new standards for that distinctive form of hatred known as odium theologicum and for mean-spirited condemnation of an old friend who had, on his rise to the papacy, been generous to you while encouraging aspects of your current work.

Before we get to your assault on the integrity of Pope Benedict XVI, however, permit me to observe that your article makes it painfully clear that you have not been paying much attention to the matters on which you pronounce with an air of infallible self-assurance that would bring a blush to the cheek of Pius IX.

You seem blithely indifferent to the doctrinal chaos besetting much of European and North American Protestantism, which has created circumstances in which theologically serious ecumenical dialogue has become gravely imperiled.

You take the most rabid of the Pius XII-baiters at face value, evidently unaware that the weight of recent scholarship is shifting the debate in favor of Pius' courage in defense of European Jewry (whatever one may think of his exercise of prudence).

You misrepresent the effects of Benedict XVI’s 2006 Regensburg Lecture, which you dismiss as having “caricatured” Islam. In fact, the Regensburg Lecture refocused the Catholic-Islamic dialogue on the two issues that complex conversation urgently needs to engage—religious freedom as a fundamental human right that can be known by reason, and the separation of religious and political authority in the twenty-first century state.

You display no comprehension of what actually prevents HIV/AIDS in Africa, and you cling to the tattered myth of “overpopulation” at a moment when fertility rates are dropping around the globe and Europe is entering a demographic winter of its own conscious creation.

You seem oblivious to the scientific evidence underwriting the Church’s defense of the moral status of the human embryo, while falsely charging that the Catholic Church opposes stem-cell research.

Why do you not know these things? You are an obviously intelligent man; you once did groundbreaking work in ecumenical theology. What has happened to you?

What has happened, I suggest, is that you have lost the argument over the meaning and the proper hermeneutics of Vatican II. That explains why you relentlessly pursue your fifty-year quest for a liberal Protestant Catholicism, at precisely the moment when the liberal Protestant project is collapsing from its inherent theological incoherence. And that is why you have now engaged in a vicious smear of another former Vatican II colleague, Joseph Ratzinger. Before addressing that smear, permit me to continue briefly on the hermeneutics of the Council.

While you are not the most theologically accomplished exponent of what Benedict XVI called the “hermeneutics of rupture” in his Christmas 2005 address to the Roman Curia, you are, without doubt, the most internationally visible member of that aging group which continues to argue that the period 1962–1965 marked a decisive trapgate in the history of the Catholic Church: the moment of a new beginning, in which Tradition would be dethroned from its accustomed place as a primary source of theological reflection, to be replaced by a Christianity that increasingly let “the world” set the Church’s agenda (as a motto of the World Council of Churches then put it).

The struggle between this interpretation of the Council, and that advanced by Council fathers like Ratzinger and Henri de Lubac, split the post-conciliar Catholic theological world into warring factions with contending journals: Concilium for you and your progressive colleagues, Communio for those you continue to call “reactionaries.” That the Concilium project became ever more implausible over time—and that a younger generation of theologians, especially in North America, gravitated toward the Communio orbit—could not have been a happy experience for you. And that the Communio project should have decisively shaped the deliberations of the 1985 Extraordinary Synod of Bishops, called by John Paul II to celebrate Vatican II’s achievements and assess its full implementation on the twentieth anniversary of its conclusion, must have been another blow.

Yet I venture to guess that the iron really entered your soul when, on December 22, 2005, the newly elected Pope Benedict XVI—the man whose appointment to the theological faculty at Tübingen you had once helped arrange—addressed the Roman Curia and suggested that the argument was over: and that the conciliar “hermeneutics of reform,” which presumed continuity with the Great Tradition of the Church, had won the day over “the hermeneutics of discontinuity and rupture.”

Perhaps, while you and Benedict XVI were drinking beer at Castel Gandolfo in the summer of 2005, you somehow imagined that Ratzinger had changed his mind on this central question. He obviously had not. Why you ever imagined he might accept your view of what an “ongoing renewal of the Church” would involve is, frankly, puzzling. Nor does your analysis of the contemporary Catholic situation become any more plausible when one reads, further along in your latest op-ed broadside, that recent popes have been “autocrats” against the bishops; again, one wonders whether you have been paying sufficient attention. For it seems self-evidently clear that Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI have been painfully reluctant—some would say, unfortunately reluctant—to discipline bishops who have shown themselves incompetent or malfeasant and have lost the capacity to teach and lead because of that: a situation many of us hope will change, and change soon, in light of recent controversies.

In a sense, of course, none of your familiar complaints about post-conciliar Catholic life is new. It does, however, seem ever more counterintuitive for someone who truly cares about the future of the Catholic Church as a witness to God’s truth for the world’s salvation to press the line you persistently urge upon us: that a credible Catholicism will tread the same path trod in recent decades by various Protestant communities which, wittingly or not, have followed one or another version of your counsel to a adopt a hermeneutics of rupture with the Great Tradition of Christianity. Still, that is the single-minded stance you have taken since one of your colleagues worried about your becoming too evident; and as that stance has kept you evident, at least on the op-ed pages of newspapers who share your reading of Catholic tradition, I expect it’s too much to expect you to change, or even modify, your views, even if every bit of empirical evidence at hand suggests that the path you propose is the path to oblivion for the churches.

What can be expected, though, is that you comport yourself with a minimum of integrity and elementary decency in the controversies in which you engage. I understand odium theologicum as well as anyone, but I must, in all candor, tell you that you crossed a line that should not have been crossed in your recent article, when you wrote the following:

There is no denying the fact that the worldwide system of covering up sexual crimes committed by clerics was engineered by the Roman Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Cardinal Ratzinger (1981-2005).

That, sir, is not true. I refuse to believe that you knew this to be false and wrote it anyway, for that would mean you had willfully condemned yourself as a liar. But on the assumption that you did not know this sentence to be a tissue of falsehoods, then you are so manifestly ignorant of how competencies over abuse cases were assigned in the Roman Curia prior to Ratzinger’s seizing control of the process and bringing it under CDF’s competence in 2001, then you have forfeited any claim to be taken seriously on this, or indeed any other matter involving the Roman Curia and the central governance of the Catholic Church.

As you perhaps do not know, I have been a vigorous, and I hope responsible, critic of the way abuse cases were (mis)handled by individual bishops and by the authorities in the Curia prior to the late 1990s, when then-Cardinal Ratzinger began to fight for a major change in the handling of these cases. (If you are interested, I refer you to my 2002 book, The Courage To Be Catholic: Crisis, Reform, and the Future of the Church.)

I therefore speak with some assurance of the ground on which I stand when I say that your description of Ratzinger’s role as quoted above is not only ludicrous to anyone familiar with the relevant history, but is belied by the experience of American bishops who consistently found Ratzinger thoughtful, helpful, deeply concerned about the corruption of the priesthood by a small minority of abusers, and distressed by the incompetence or malfeasance of bishops who took the promises of psychotherapy far more seriously than they ought, or lacked the moral courage to confront what had to be confronted.

I recognize that authors do not write the sometimes awful subheads that are put on op-ed pieces. Nonetheless, you authored a piece of vitriol—itself utterly unbecoming a priest, an intellectual, or a gentleman—that permitted the editors of the Irish Times to slug your article: “Pope Benedict has made worse just about everything that is wrong with the Catholic Church and is directly responsible for engineering the global cover-up of child rape perpetrated by priests, according to this open letter to all Catholic bishops.” That grotesque falsification of the truth perhaps demonstrates where odium theologicum can lead a man. But it is nonetheless shameful.

Permit me to suggest that you owe Pope Benedict XVI a public apology, for what, objectively speaking, is a calumny that I pray was informed in part by ignorance (if culpable ignorance). I assure you that I am committed to a thoroughgoing reform of the Roman Curia and the episcopate, projects I described at some length in God’s Choice: Pope Benedict XVI and the Future of the Catholic Church, a copy of which, in German, I shall be happy to send you. But there is no path to true reform in the Church that does not run through the steep and narrow valley of the truth. The truth was butchered in your article in the Irish Times. And that means that you have set back the cause of reform.

With the assurance of my prayers,

George Weigel

Lumen Gentium: Pursuit of Holiness

42. "God is love, and he who abides in love, abides in God and God in Him".(227) But, God pours out his love into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, Who has been given to us;(228) thus the first and most necessary gift is love, by which we love God above all things and our neighbor because of God. Indeed, in order that love, as good seed may grow and bring forth fruit in the soul, each one of the faithful must willingly hear the Word of God and accept His Will, and must complete what God has begun by their own actions with the help of God's grace. These actions consist in the use of the sacraments and in a special way the Eucharist, frequent participation in the sacred action of the Liturgy, application of oneself to prayer, self-abnegation, lively fraternal service and the constant exercise of all the virtues. For charity, as the bond of perfection and the fullness of the law,(229) rules over all the means of attaining holiness and gives life to these same means.(12*) It is charity which guides us to our final end. It is the love of God and the love of one's neighbor which points out the true disciple of Christ.

Since Jesus, the Son of God, manifested His charity by laying down His life for us, so too no one has greater love than he who lays down his life for Christ and His brothers.(230) From the earliest times, then, some Christians have been called upon—and some will always be called upon—to give the supreme testimony of this love to all men, but especially to persecutors. The Church, then, considers martyrdom as an exceptional gift and as the fullest proof of love. By martyrdom a disciple is transformed into an image of his Master by freely accepting death for the salvation of the world—as well as his conformity to Christ in the shedding of his blood. Though few are presented such an opportunity, nevertheless all must be prepared to confess Christ before men. They must be prepared to make this profession of faith even in the midst of persecutions, which will never be lacking to the Church, in following the way of the cross...

The Church continually keeps before it the warning of the Apostle which moved the faithful to charity, exhorting them to experience personally what Christ Jesus had known within Himself. This was the same Christ Jesus, who "emptied Himself, taking the nature of a slave . . . becoming obedient to death",(233) and because of us "being rich, he became poor".(234) Because the disciples must always offer an imitation of and a testimony to the charity and humility of Christ, Mother Church rejoices at finding within her bosom men and women who very closely follow their Saviour who debased Himself to our comprehension. There are some who, in their freedom as sons of God, renounce their own wills and take upon themselves the state of poverty. Still further, some become subject of their own accord to another man, in the matter of perfection for love of God. This is beyond the measure of the commandments, but is done in order to become more fully like the obedient Christ.(15*)

Therefore, all the faithful of Christ are invited to strive for the holiness and perfection of their own proper state. Indeed they have an obligation to so strive. Let all then have care that they guide aright their own deepest sentiments of soul. Let neither the use of the things of this world nor attachment to riches, which is against the spirit of evangelical poverty, hinder them in their quest for perfect love. Let them heed the admonition of the Apostle to those who use this world; let them not come to terms with this world; for this world, as we see it, is passing away.(235)(16*)

St. Augustine, Infant Communion and the Council of Trent

I was reading the Council of Trent this morning on the Mass and was puzzled by the strong anathema of the Council concerning the necessity of infants receiving communion in contrast to the writings and teachings of the early Fathers. One such Father is Saint Augustine who said,

“Those who say that infancy has nothing in it for Jesus to save, are denying that Christ is Jesus for all believing infants. Those, I repeat, who say that infancy has nothing in it for Jesus to save, are saying nothing else than that for believing infants, infants that is who have been baptized in Christ, Christ the Lord is not Jesus. After all, what is Jesus? Jesus means Saviour. Jesus is the Saviour. Those whom he doesn’t save, having nothing to save in them, well for them he isn’t Jesus. Well now, if you can tolerate the idea that Christ is not Jesus for some persons who have been baptized, then I’m not sure your faith can be recognized as according with the sound rule. Yes, they’re infants, but they are his members. They’re infants, but they receive his sacraments. They are infants, but they share in his table, in order to have life in themselves.”

Augustine, Sermon 174, 7

Did the Council of Trent anathematise Saint Augustine in the Twenty-first Session, Canon IV that reads, If anyone says that communion of the Eucharist is necessary for little children before they have arrived at years of discretion; let him be anathema. ? Does not communion of infants make the most sense if we believe what we say about them at their baptisms? If they are saved at baptism and united to the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and in a real organic living union with Christ and the Catholic Church, then why not feed them and nourish them with the body and blood with whom they are in union? Of course, the Eastern Orthodox still practise paedocommunion and I wonder why the Council took such a strong position against it when so many early Fathers prior to the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 said no differently than Saint Augustine? Does anyone know of any recent Western Rite Catholic who has reviewed this topic in writing?

Crucifying the Pope: What's Wrong with the World

By Dr. Michael Liccione Do read the entire piece by clicking the link!

In 2002, when the scandal found its epicenter in the Archdiocese of Boston, Americans became fully aware of the extent to which a small minority of Catholic priests had been sexually abusing minors and, for far too long, getting away with it. The American bishops and, as we have learned, the bishops of Ireland and many other countries, usually shielded their clerical buddies from civil prosecution and even, in many cases, minimal ecclesiastical discipline. Such failure to protect innocents has led since then to massive payouts for civil damages. Naturally, the bishops and the Vatican itself have been doing much since then to address the problem--even though many American bishops, such as Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles, have failed to take as much personal responsibility as they should, and most have failed to acknowledge the rather clear implications of the fact that most victims are, or were, pubescent boys. But now we face a new wave of reports about Joseph Ratzinger's role in old cases. With whatever degree of objective justice, the scandal has now reached the Pope himself.

The complaint is not that he abused anyone himself during his long career, but that he was criminally negligent in failing to take due action, as an archbishop and then as the Curia's most powerful official, against many of the priestly perps who came to his attention. Some of the better-known enemies of the Church, such as Richard Dawkins, now propose to arrest the Pope for that and put him in the dock, presumably at the International Court of Justice. The interest of such a ludicrous proposal does not lie in its legal plausibility, which I am unqualified to judge and is probably a strictly academic question in any case. Its interest lies in the challenge it poses to explaining the irrationality behind it.

I believe myself qualified to discuss that not only as a lifelong Catholic who has spent much of his professional life defending the Catholic faith and serving the Church, but also as a victim of molestation myself, in my early teens, at the hands of a priest-teacher of mine. My abuser died years ago; I have not seen fit to sue the Church; indeed my experience was one of the factors that led me to reject progressive Catholicism and ascribe to what is generally understood to be "orthodox" Catholicism. I understand, of course, why many victims have rejected the Church, even religious belief generally, and have lived very troubled lives. How could anybody not understand that? But the generalized furor, among people who are neither victims nor loved ones of victims, strikes me as positively irrational. My way of explaining why I say that can only issue in a statement of faith. But I believe that's just what's called for, if only at the end not the beginning.

What's irrational about the furor? Well, for one thing, the sexual abuse of minors, both "pedophilia" and what is gently called "ephebophilia," is much more common in, say, public schools than in Catholic institutions or, indeed, in most churches. That of course does not excuse even a single rape of a child by anyone in the Church; such acts are serious crimes deserving proportionate punishment, which the bishops have only too slowly recognized. But notice that nobody is calling for the arrest of public-school officials who, in many cases, have done too little to address just the same problem among adults under their authority. One might reply, of course, that representatives of the Church should be held to a higher standard. And in one sense, that is true: given what they profess, we do have a right to expect better behavior from such representatives than from most other people. But it doesn't follow that civil law should punish them all the more severely on that account. People who believe it should all the same are engaged simply in a form of religious discrimination. For such people, "religion" in general, or perhaps this particular form of religion, merits special opprobrium simply because some of its representatives are greater-than-average hypocrites. That may well be true, but such a notion has hitherto had no place in civil or canon law. It is the product of a rage that cannot be explained simply by the nature of the crimes in question, which do not provoke the same degree of outrage when others commit them, and which are matched in hypocrisy by many other sorts of sin committed every day by others.

The rage stems, in my long experience, from a free-floating bitterness about prior issues people have with the Church—issues that are mostly about sex and power among adults, such as celibacy, women's ordination, and the authority the Church claims for her teachings about sexuality generally. Maureen Dowd is one prominent purveyor of that attitude, but her distinctive style of thought—if it can be called thought—is not worth a digression here.

Westminster Archdiocese Priest Training Fund: Please Donate

Priest Training Fund from Catholic Westminster on Vimeo.

Dawkins' Inconsistency: Eyes They Have, And See Not

The fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. GK Chesterton.

Chesterton’s words have never been more apposite than in the case of Richard Dawkins. This post is inspired by something written in a comment in the below piece. Anybody still convinced of Dawkins' good-faith in aiming to arrest Pope Benedict needs to a look at what Dawkins wrote in 2006 in the God Delusion:

we live in a time of hysteria about paedophilia, a mob psychology that calls to mind the Salem witch-hunts of 1692… All three of the boarding schools I attended employed teachers whose affections for small boys overstepped the bounds of propriety. That was indeed reprehensible. Nevertheless, if, fifty years on, they had been hounded by vigilantes or lawyers as no better than child murderers, I should have felt obliged to come to their defence, even as the victim of one of them (an embarrassing but otherwise harmless experience). (Richard Dawkins, God Delusion, pp.315-316 – see here for the full, highly compromising quotation).

“Embarrassing but otherwise harmless”. Now that is a puzzling phrase to me being that Dawkins has called upon the arrest of the Holy Father for claiming he is guilty of Crimes Against Humanity for concealing who pedophile priests were. Is he not doing the same based upon his own admission of his experience and calling it "embarrassing but otherwise harmless?" The difficulty is knowing if he is merely talking generally about paedophilia or his own experience with it as a victim. What is clearly inconsistent is his words "Nevertheless, if, fifty years on, they had been hounded by vigilantes or lawyers as no better than child murderers, I should have felt obliged to come to their defence," and yet he calls for the arrest of the HF in the same breath! Remarkable really!

What is also truly puzzling, is the Guardian's acceptance of such a remarkably inconsistent person on the very same issue. I can only conclude that for Dawkins, reason is not his strong suit. What would be interesting is for the very media sources that gave Dawkins so much time with regards to this might also be obliged to phone him back for a statement on the above quotation from his book asking him how his concealment of teachers back in his own school days now gives him the credibility to argue for the Pope's arrest. Can any reader shed light on this inconsistency?

Pope is Innocent: Deliver Us from the Mob

Jack Valero has a most reasoned report out of all UK papers, to my surprise, that is a must read; including the mob (as Valero terms it) that wants the HF brought down. Much of the journalism around this story of scandal is as Chesterton described it once by saying "Journalism largely consists of saying 'Lord Jones is Dead' to people who never knew that Lord Jones was alive." That is the problem with the ridiculousness of Richard Dawkins et.al. and the hunt to bring down the Pope. Chesterton wrote the following almost 100 years ago in his work Orthodoxy that still rings very true today.

The new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book (about the sex problem) in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy [1] because they keep it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble. The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.

This is exactly the way in which I personally see the media saga working out and numerous issues surrounding Dawkins and the media mob show this clearly in my mind. The skeptic, as these post-modern liberals are, have lost the right to rebel against anything because they rebel against everything. These people are simply recycling old errors that have proved that they really have nothing new to offer the world. There is nothing new under the sun. Chesterton wrote about the ruin of the common journalist who decides to tell the truth by saying,

Now the word "common" in "Common Informer" means exactly what it means in "common sense" or "Book of Common Prayer," or (above all) in "House of Commons." It does not mean anything low or vulgar; any more than they do... It is just the same with the word "Informer." It does not mean spy or sneak. It means one who gives information. It means what "journalist" ought to mean. The only difference is that the Common Informer may be paid if he tells the truth. The common journalist will be ruined if he does.

This brings me to offer a quotation to the story in the Guardian this morning. I am happy to see it in the press and I wonder what sort of response will be given.

The three recent stories from the US cited by Richard Dawkins and his mob as "proving" that the pope should be arrested under international law – the horrible cases of Murphy in Wisconsin, Teta and Trupia in Arizona, and now Kiesle in California – have this in common: the abuse took place in the 1970s; the police were informed and acted; the priest was suspended by his bishop; requests for dismissal from the clerical state ("defrocking") were sent to Cardinal Ratzinger's department in the Vatican, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; and some time later the priests were defrocked – except in the case of Murphy, who died during his trial.

Suspension and defrocking are two separate actions. The first can be done by a bishop, with immediate effect; the second is a lengthy process that involves Rome. Suspension – meaning a priest is no longer able to function as a priest – say mass, hear confession, act as chaplain etc – is the key action that a bishop has to take against an abusive priest to prevent him having contact with minors. If, in any of these "smoking gun" cases, the bishop failed to suspend an abusive priest immediately, he did wrong. But such failure would have had nothing to do with Cardinal Ratzinger, whose only involvement was when a request for defrocking landed on his desk.

The time Rome took over each defrocking says nothing whatsoever about cover-up or collusion. It says only that defrocking was then a complex and elaborate procedure that took too long. However, what prevented the abuse was not the defrocking but the suspension by the bishop. There is no link between the length of the defrocking process and the priest's opportunity to abuse. In fact, in the case of Kiesle, most of the abuse for which he was convicted took place after he was defrocked, when his bishop had no more control over him.

But wasn't Ratzinger in charge while all this was going on? Didn't it happen on his watch? No. From 1981 to 2001 he was in charge of a department that dealt with defrocking, but not with suspensions and penalties for paedophile priests, which were the responsibility of local bishops. A number of bishops failed to suspend the abusive priests, some of whom continued to abuse. That is the scandal. It has been exposed and dealt with, and a number of bishops have, as a result, resigned. More important, guidelines are now in place to prevent it ever happening again.

Not only was Cardinal Ratzinger not complicit in these failures, he was the Vatican official who most clearly saw what was needed to tackle the problem. Then, in 2001, Pope John Paul asked him to review the local churches' handling of clerical abuse cases. Cardinal Ratzinger asked bishops around the world to forward to him all cases where credible allegations had been made against priests.

Hatred of the Church and Christianity

Ignatius Insights provides a nice piece concerning the hatred of the Church. It is written by Fr. James V. Schall, S.J. and is very telling of the present state of things coming from the media. Hatred is not more seen than in a "so-called" journalistic piece coming out of Australia by a Bob Ellis asking why we not bomb the Vatican, and chase the Pope through the sewers of Europe until he is found and riddled with bullets. This media hysteria is beyond the pale of reason. It is downright evil and would not be tolerated at all if it were aimed at other religious groups such as Muslims or Jews. Why is it tolerated from the press? Why aren't these people who write such wickedness being dealt with in the courts? There comes a time when this nonsense needs to be stopped and sometimes the only recourse is civil litigation as this is completely out of hand. I hope someone finally puts an end to this nonsense because this is not only important for the present reporting and journalistic integrity to remain in tact but how the Church will be dealt with in the press in the future. Legal justice may be the only solution to this media hysteria. Father Schall writes,

In the beginning of these considerations, I cited a reflection of Benedict about the Gospel story of the woman caught in adultery. Evidently, she is guilty, whatever we now think of adultery and the punishment of it in the Old Law. Adultery is often considered more of a recreation than a moral problem. We are all against capital punishment for any crime or any sort. But Benedict notes the hypocrisy involved in this scene. The woman had recognized the problem. The local leaders wanted to stone her. Christ did not concern himself with the prescriptions of the Old Law or whether the woman was guilty. He concentrated on the accusers. What were their souls really like? He knew. He wrote on the ground. They knew He knew.

Evidently, each accuser suddenly realized that he was in a worse position than the woman. On this self-reflection, each walks away silently, hopefully wiser. No one is left to accuse her. Does that mean that she was not guilty? No. Does it mean that we need to be pretty careful how we judge others? Yes, it does.

We look at our modern day accusers. We look at what they hold. They have few if any problems with all sorts of human disorders which they have now made to be "human rights." The one classical thing that they still hold is that child abuse is wrong. But it is mainly wrong because no "consent" is involved. The same activities of those "of age" are deemed acceptable. Consent makes all sorts of sordid things all right. But does that make them all right?

This issue is the center of the crisis of our civilization. Much of the publicity about child abuse is really, I think, about the Church's stance on what is objectively wrong. This issue is the one place that the secular society and the Church agree. The Church has never taught these things are all right, even when done by presumably pious men. Thus, the implication that the Church is not a valid upholder of moral law because of this issue must be rejected.

But what is behind it all? What is sought is the de-legitimization of the Church because it continues to point to the disorders in our moral life that are now made over into civil law and enforced by it. The state wants its definition to be "holy." The only major impediment remaining to this absolute goal is the Church, which includes sinners.

The implication of the accusers of Church officials is that their own acts or their dealings with abusers are at times objectively wrong. Often they are. The Church has no problem in admitting these facts, when they are facts.

The second citation I cited was from the first letter of Peter. It is quite instructive. Peter is not surprised that there may well be murderers, thieves, and other sorts among the believers. If so, the instruction is simple: "Stop." It assumes this stopping is possible. We are free.

Then the epistle adds that, if the real opposition arises because we are Christian, then we should rejoice. The same thing happened to the Lord. He was hated not because of bad things but because of good ones. So what is at work here may not be only a question of sinful Christians and their inept responses. It may rather be about whether there is still in the world an authority that stands over against its living disorders.

People of the household of God are warned about the judgment of their acts and holdings. Likewise are those judged who "refuse the Gospel of God." Sometimes when I read about those who accuse the Church in this area, I wonder what would happen if they were selected to throw the first stone.

The final judgment of these things is necessary if the world is to be complete. What many want is the removal of any thought of such a judgment if it does not agree with their self-made world. In this sense, I think, we witness not so much a wringing of hands about sinful clerics, but an attack on the last force that can credibly state the disorders of our own souls and public lives.

Rome: A Life-Changing Pilgrimage

One year ago today was Easter Sunday and after celebrating the Anglican Eucharistic service at two parish churches, I boarded a plane to Rome for Easter Week. This pilgrimage came at a very important time for me. There were so many theological issues that were a part of my then current position that became the catalyst for my decision to pilgrimage at this time. In light of the theological and ministerial difficulties I faced, a sense of 'spiritual depression' for lack of a better term, was also being resisted. But, God had other plans in store for me as he met me in my prayerful pilgrimage to Rome. It was planned as a pilgrimage of prayer too. It was not "Roman fever" nor any romanticised hope as I boarded the plane. I left England intending to meet God in prayer and to find answers to the questions troubling my soul. There was much fear and uncertainty about what I would hear God telling me before I arrived in Rome. Would I have the courage to be united to the Catholic Church if God was leading me to this at this time or would I look for excuses to put off what I believed in my heart was at the heart of Jesus' priestly prayer. These were the thoughts that were running through my head as I was in route to the Eternal City for the first time.

I remember thinking that issues in Holy Orders and human sexuality could not be the primary reasons for wanting to become a Catholic. It had to be more than what could appear to be sexism or some phobia or wrong directions of Anglicans with whom I was in communion. To be a Catholic was more than those issues. I knew it and I knew I had to pray this way as I planned my prayerful pilgrimage around the city while sitting on the plane. I had been thinking a lot about Pope Benedict XVI's writings on communio leading up to this pilgrimage. In case the Spirit was to move me to union with the Holy See, I brought my copy of the Catholic Catechism with me to sign at St. Peter's tomb. I knew that I believed the catechism and was even challenged by Anglican colleagues for bringing it up when they discussed their "grey area" theology. I was reminded then that I was an Anglican and not a Catholic but would hear the term Catholic when it was convenient...Theological integrity would win out the arguments for me in the end. It was truth found in the person of Jesus Christ and it was Jesus' voice that I wanted to hear say 'come, follow me.' I was frightened, but prepared, to obey if I sensed God's Spirit leading. And I have to be honest, I was very frightened indeed about this pilgrimage while being excited at the same time.

The Story of what happened can be read at my blog post from last year after announcing what happened on my pilgrimage and 'coming out' with my decision that was made on 17 April 2009 in Rome. The following week I met with a few bishops about my becoming a Catholic. I told them that I had just returned from Rome, prayed at St. Peter's tomb and signed the Catholic Catechism. After what seemed to be a long fall from the moment I left Rome until being received on 18 July 2009 into the Catholic Church, I can say that the past 9 1/2 months have been the most joy-filled growth in my love for Jesus and the Church than I have ever had in my spiritual journey thus far. So much good has happened as a result of my new ministry as a school chaplain in Durham and my future chaplaincy work in London this next school year.

The ridiculousness of the present crisis surrounding the Holy Father does nothing to my faith in the Church but only show the loss of integrity in journalism today. Orwell's 1984 comes to mind more than anything else with regards to the present reporting of the crisis but that is another story not worth a blog post really.

I will walk the journey of prayer once again this week giving thanks to God for bringing me and my family home to the Catholic Church and in union with our universal Pastor. Deo gratias!

A Catholic Critique of our Modern Statism

General Elections are obviously upon us and naturally getting much press coverage in the papers and on the TV. Talking to many, they see no point in voting because they say once the politicians get in they do their own agenda and not what we asked them to do to begin with, so what's the point. The remark is understandable and a bit frightening at the same time due to the deep level of scepticism that flows out of such remarks. A clear sign of our times is the taking down of fences without ever knowing why they were put up to begin with to echo G.K. Chesterton. All in the talk of liberty, the State does have the possibility of enslaving its people to itself. The truth is that it is not that they can't see the solution, they can't see the problem.

This morning I gave some time to reading Fr. Aidan Nichols' new work Criticising the Critics. It comes highly recommended and is very relevant to everything we are experiencing today in our culture and I do recommend readers to take the time and effort to buy it and read it again and perhaps a second time. It seems to me, after listening to the rambling of the politicians today, many have lost their way in understanding the God-given purpose of the State. Quoting from Pope Benedict XVI encyclical Deus caritas est, Fr. Aidan writes,

We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with the closeness to those in need.

There are limits to government's responsibilities and jurisdictions and they ought to be reminded by the people. As Chesterton said, art, like morality consists of drawing lines somewhere. The truth is that government has lines too. All of this talk of struggling to protect human dignity from some politicians misses the mark completely if it is not understood within the proper boundaries of the purpose of the State in not crossing into territory that is not part of their remit. I believe Father Nichols gets to the heart of the issue when he says,

If rational humanists, struggling to defend human dignity while denying man's creation in the divine image may be said to mistake the foundations of anthropology, secularists, through using the legislature to press human rights claims in new directions, may be said to misunderstand the nature of the State. Where its higher functions are concerned, over and above the defence of the national territory and the preservation of fundamental order (including, as we have seen recently, economic order), it is not the task of the State to invent new moralities, but to guard the spiritual civilization of its own society. For the legislature and judiciary that means being guided in the formulation and interpretation of laws by the moral ethos which forms a given society's spiritual patrimony. For the executive it means self-restraint, since the urge to intervene at as many points as possible in civil society, whether administratively or by proposing new laws, undermines the will of citizens to collaborate with each other in community-building projects at all levels of life. Where charities and other voluntary associations are so managed by State actions that they become little more than expressions of a government project, the result will eventually be for civil society to wither away.[Scary how much this can impact Catholic education for our children.]

In the moment when Catholics will be voting, along with the rest of the public in our land, this is important to consider when making a decision on how to vote. It would seem to me that BIGGER government is not what is needed in our day for that is what is helping to cause civil society to wither away. Yesterday I heard some staggering figures from my mother-in-law about how our Catholic youth are thinking and believing in the ways of the world. I will post something on that once I get the resources together. If we are going to live in a free society then it is the government's responsibility to make it easy, not difficult, to transmit the faith and form of life we believe as Catholics to our children and grandchildren. May God give our leaders the courage to do what is right and good for the society in the interpretation of laws according to our moral God-given code that built our society and in using wisdom and integrity in self-restraint in the intervention into areas where they have no business! When this happens, the West will experience the freedom and re-building of our civil society once again and perhaps order and peace will be a result.

Saint Thomas More, pray for us!

Prayers Please for My Mother-in-law

I have just hung up the phone speaking with my mother-in-law who has been battling ovarian cancer the past two years. The cancer has come back significantly and a large tumor has been found in her lower abdomen and she is going in for surgery this Monday. As one could imagine, it is difficult for Rhea, my wife, being so far away from her mum's home in Florida. Rhea's mum's name is Jare (sounds like "Jerry") and I am asking for prayers for her throughout this week and particularly on Monday for her surgery.

She is not only a wonderful mother-in-law to me but a dear friend as well. Not many men I would think could say they have wonderful long phone conversations with their mother-in-law and hang up loving them more than when they rang but that is how I feel about Jare. She has also been a wonderful friend to me since I've been married to her daughter. Thank you for prayers for Jare and any priests who might offer Mass intentions would be greatly appreciated. Rhea's dad's name is Henry if you could remember him at this time as well. Thank you to all who are so faithful to pray!

Don't Blame Celibacy: Weigel Points Us To Theology

Sexual abuse is indeed horrible, but there is no empirical evidence that it is a uniquely, predominantly, or even strikingly Catholic problem. The sexual abuse of the young is a global plague. In the United States, some 40 to 60 percent of such abuse takes place within families—often at the hands of live-in boyfriends or the second (or third, or fourth) husband of a child's mother; those cases have nothing to do with celibacy. The case of a married Wilmington, Dela., pediatrician charged with 471 counts of sexual abuse in February has nothing to do with celibacy. Neither did the 290,000 cases of sexual abuse in American public schools between 1991 and 2000, estimated by Charol Shakeshaft of Virginia Commonwealth University. And given the significant level of abuse problems in Christian denominations with married clergy, it's hard to accept the notion that marriage is somehow a barrier against sexually abusive clergy. (Indeed, the idea of reducing marriage to an abuse-prevention program ought to be repulsive.) Sexual abusers throughout the world are overwhelmingly noncelibates....

As for doctrine: what ought to be obvious about sexual abuse in the Catholic Church is that these grave sins and crimes were acts of infidelity, denials of the truths the church teaches. A priest who takes seriously the vows of his ordination is not a sexual abuser or predator. And if a bishop takes seriously his ordination oath to shepherd the Lord's flock, he will always put the safety of the Master's little ones ahead of concerns about public scandal. Catholic Lite is not the answer to what has essentially been a crisis of fidelity.

Since 2002, with strong support from then-cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (and from him still as Benedict XVI), the Catholic Church in America has developed and enforced policies and procedures to ensure the safety of the young that offer an important model for the world church. There were only six credible reports of sexual abuse of the young in the U.S. church last year. And while that is six too many in a church that ought to hold itself to the highest standards, it is nonetheless remarkable in a community of 68 million people.

What is essential throughout the world, however, is that the church become more Catholic, not less. John Paul II's "Theology of the Body" proposed an understanding of faithful and fruitful human love as an icon of God's inner life. That vision is far nobler, far more compelling, and far more humane than the sex-as-contact-sport teaching of the sexual revolution, the principal victims of which seem to be vulnerable young people. Those who are genuinely committed to the protection of the young might ponder whether Catholicism really needs to become Catholic Lite—or whether the Augean stables of present-day culture need a radical cleansing.

See the article here.

Pic From EWTN Series.

Pro-life, Pro-family Victory in Parliament

John Smeaton is reporting on his blog that the Bill for the Children, Schools, and Families will not included the PSHE provisions that upset so many faithful Christians in the UK. This comes immediately after the announcement for a General Election for which we should all be praying asking that God's wisdom be given to us for the votes we make. John Smeaton writes,

The Government Minister responsible for the Bill, Baroness Morgan (pictured) has now added her name to motions tabled by Baroness Verma (the Conservative spokesperson on education), Lord Alton of Liverpool - and co-sponsored by Baroness O'Loan - which effectively remove the offensive clauses in the bill.

This means that when the House of Lords passes the Children, Schools and Families Bill tomorrow evening, it will be minus the PSHE provisions. A huge pro-life victory.

Credit is due to all those who lobbied against a bill which SPUC has said would have been the biggest expansion of the culture of death through thousands of state schools in England - promoting abortion provision for children and simultaneously sounding the death knell for parents' right and responsibilities to be the primary educators and protectors of their children.

It seems that the Conservatives stood firm in their opposition to the sex and relationships education clauses in the bill, as did Lord Alton and Baroness O'Loan.

I would also pay tribute to over 100 Catholic headteachers and governors, three Catholic bishops and over three hundred clergy, both Catholic and from other denominations/faiths, who signed a letter to the Sunday Telegraph opposing the bill. The initiative was led by Norman Wells of the Family Education Trust. The massive support the letter received from leading Catholics showed just how out of touch the Catholic Education Service (CES) is with the concerns of the Catholics community in England and Wales.

HT Fr. Blake

Sign and Support our Holy Father!

Support the Holy Father! Sign the petition.

Dear Holy Father,

We, the undersigned, want you to know that you are not alone in your pledge to fight injustice and the ailments in the Church. We want you to know that we trust you in your role as the leader of the Church. We want you to know that we forgive the sins of other members of the Church as we are forgiven. We are praying for you; for your courage, conviction, perseverance, and resolve.

We love you Papa Benedicto XVI!

Anglicanorum Coetibus and Bishop Andrew Burnham's Pastoral Letter

This morning I was sent Bishop Andrew Burnham's April pastoral letter and thought there were some important points made within it that I will share below. The letter reads,

Is RITA right
FOLLOWING the wonderful Day of Prayer on the Chair of Peter on 22nd February, priests and parishes and people, up and down the country, are considering what the future direction should be for Anglo-catholics. Hardly a day goes by without me being asked by someone for comment. As I write, I am arranging a number of meetings with clergy and lay people to see quite where we are getting to. Meanwhile, in the back of our minds - and not always the back! - are the Pope's offer of an Ordinariate (the very framework which we were asking the Church of England for, and which they have said is impossible), and the forthcoming vote in General Synod in July. It will be the July Synod of 2010, it seems, right at the end of the synodical quinquennium, that decides whether or not to accept the recommendations of the legislative committee, recommendations which (we are already told) will not make proper provision for Anglo-catholics.

Anglo-catholics, for a generation at least, have talked about the priority being reunion with Rome and the Holy See. [Part of the reason I faced so much bewilderment as the result of the crazed responses about my decision to become a Catholic was that I truly believed that being a part of FiF and SSC meant one of the main goals was a way we could get an honest dialogue with Rome on corporate re-union to take place. I was made to believe that the hopes of a 'Third Province' would finally give us a platform in which to work for that reunion...Personally, as a whole, I am not confident of this commitment at this stage of things.] Faced with an offer from the Pope for a way forward into re-union - indeed the only way forward that will be possible for the foreseeable future - I think we have to consider that route on its own merits. It can't be a 'Plan B' or an emergency exit. [It was at the Feb. 2009 FiF Meeting that made me see more clearly that our "talk" of being Catholic did not go as deep as I assumed up to that point.] It is an invitation into full communion with Peter, who, according to Catholic teaching, is the Vicar of Christ. It is RITA ('Rome is the answer'): 'Plan A' and the front door, for those who want it and understand its importance. And yet there will be plenty of Anglo-catholics who don't want it, preferring their own congregational independence, [strange being that this is a most un-catholic ecclesiology all the while having catholic ritual trappings; this circle cannot be squared.] and some who, on principle, simply do not accept the central leadership role of Peter and his successor the Pope, at least as it is presently exercised. From this it follows that the July vote, however crucial it seems to us, in itself solves nothing. [This is exactly right because this issue is not really about provision but ecclesiology and communio as a first order issue.] Whatever the result of the General Synod debate, the Holy Father's offer deserves to be considered in its own right. Whatever the result of the debate, those who cannot accept the ministry of Peter should not accept the Pope's offer. Amidst this, it is hard to see anything but a time of division, a 'parting of friends', though, thankfully, no one seems to be heading off to form or join anything new, or smaller: there are enough sects already.

I think the questions every Anglo-catholic need to ask are (1) 'is our understanding of the Church, her Faith, her Orders, and her Sacraments possible within the Church of England? and (2) is it possible (however unlikely it may seem) that the whole of the Church of England will embrace that understanding of the Church, her Faith, her Orders, and her Sacraments? If the answer to either question is 'no', then the Church of England is not part of the Catholic Church as we understand it to be and we Anglo-catholics ought to do all we can to become 'Anglican Catholics', that is, sign up one by one, but in our natural groupings, for the emerging Ordinariate. [This question gets to the heart of the matter really. I know some won't like the language but this is where the "bluff" has most clearly been called and many Catholics I know, both clergy and laity, are making this very point.] Those are the issues I am presently thinking through myself, and shall continue to think through as I celebrate the paschal mysteries of baptism and confirmation and the Petertide gift of ordination. [To all Anglicans taking this decision seriously in prayer, please know our own prayers for you are being offered. It takes a huge leap of faith but I can assure you there is a net that will catch you as you are received into the bosom of Christ's Church.]

May God bless you as you celebrate the new life of Easter.

Are there any other thoughts on the content and substance of this letter? I think it gets to the issue very well. Any form of independence and congregationalism is not Catholic in any shape or form no matter what is worn or how much smoke fills the rooms. What does it mean for us to be in Christ's one holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church? Honest answers to this question by 'Catholic-minded' Anglicans can only be answered in one way it seems to me. What else could it mean to be Catholic if it has nothing to do with communio?