On The Side of the Angels

Catholic England

2011-09-03T14:57:00.000+01:00

A Beginning?

2011-05-11T17:42:00.000+01:00

The Call went out from Dylan Parry aka A Reluctant Sinner for a gathering of Catholic Bloggers with the intention of forming a 'Guild' and in some way further promoting the Faith and supporting fellow Catholics in a more cohesive unified way - an extension to our own blogs or our commentary elsewhere [I have to concede with Brian Sudlow of The Sensible Bond that I am more a commentator than a blogger - time restrictions and the availability of a good argument elsewhere are invariably to blame]

Now let's make one thing clear:
I don't think there is one Catholic blogger out there who doesn't want this type of 'Umbrella group' - Most of us have been calling for something akin to it for years - Damian Thompson had a few ideas in 2008 [which sadly all came to naught thanks to our illustrious Cardinal- but that's water under the bridge] and old Holy Smoker Benedict Carter had a similar idea in early 2009 but logistics, calendar restrictions and geography also led to this idea fading away]. I've been nagging everyone for years that we needed to be a unified force within the country - promoting and defending the faith and reaching out to dispossesed and disenfranchised Catholics throughout the country and reassuring them that they are not alone....

Poor Red Maria was forever getting it in the neck from me that we had to do something, James [Free the Brum 3!] Preece concurred, and the suggestion was oft-repeated to Fr Tim Finigan & Fr Ray Blake & Fr Mildew
and Mulier Fortis and Laurence England and the marvellous Ttony of The Muniment Room have all either promoted or supported the idea of it...Fr Tim has always been one of the first to offer his services and his Parish for anything that would promote the cause [God bless him!]

But apart from a few blognics and Fr Mildew's lunches nothing was ever really done - then after a few run-ins with Radio4 regarding their choices of guests on their religious programming and Channel4 over the Jon Snow/ Joanna Bogle debacle of hiv/condoms
[and I advise everyone to watch it again - recognise just how well Joanna started - that the other lady repeatedly lied [yes lied - she knew exactly what the Cochrane report of 2007 said in regard to condom safety in serodiscordant hiv couples - only reducing the rate of infection by 80%] - and that Jon Snow was being his most pig-ignorant [ the issue continued on his blog; within two days he apologised - but ironically this fact has never been mentioned by certain individuals prominent in the catholic 'meedja scene' [ we all know who they are ] despite repeat reference to the incident itself] One of the bitterest ironies - there are two prominent people lengthily defending the Catholic position - yours truly and certain Mr D Parry!!!! [who'dathunkit!!!!?]

Now yes of course what the hell was Joanna Bogle doing on a TV news programme as an unofficial spokesperson for the Church? Where were the CCN? Where was Bishops' Conference - Archbishop Smith in particular [this being his remit - and his duty to support his Brother Bishop the Holy Father]? We know from some journalists' articles and blog comments that rather than arguing for the Catholic position they'd have said the exact opposite of Joanna's position - Both CAFOD & Austen Ivereigh support the idea that the 'prophylactic intention' overrides the contraceptivity issue in condom use.

Of course they were nowhere to be seen - and to be honest would they have used the truth to argue their case and defend the Faith? I think not! Now I don't think Joanna will mind my saying that I got tore into her and told her for her own sake that she really needed to get some media training [and why the bloody hell shouldn't conference pay for it given she was there in their stead - doing the job they refused to do?!!!]

Anyway back to what I was saying - this incident - together with +Vin and +Smiffy making major gaffes in radio interviews and guests on the Sunday programme, Beyond Belief, the Moral maze and TFTD being from the extremely progressive wing to the point of being fantasy-sushi-catholics rather than plain cafeteria ones; it seemed to everyone that the Tabletista had all of the media completely sewn up!

[to be continued - hopefully this evening]

The 'Cleverness' of things...

2011-05-11T13:54:00.002+01:00

"Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and I have founded empires. But on what did we rest the creations of our genius? Upon force. Jesus Christ founded his empire upon love; and at this hour millions of men would die for him." [Napoleon Bonaparte]

"If Jesus Christ were to come today people would not even crucify Him. They would ask Him to dinner, and hear what He has to say, and make fun of it." [Thomas Carlyle]

"Joined whom, what clever people?" cried Alyosha, completely carried away.
"They have no such great cleverness and no mysteries and secrets....
Perhaps nothing but Atheism, that's all their secret.
Your Inquisitor does not believe in God, that's his secret!"
['The Grand Inquisitor' from Dostoyevsky's 'The Brothers Karamazov']

On the Catholic Herald blog Fr Alexander Lucie-Smith comments on The Observer's '300 British Intellectuals' List and sadly notes the dearth of Catholics among the renowned [even the few Catholics present aren't exactly recognised for their Catholicism - did anyone know Mark Lawson was a Catholic? Tediously pretentious yes: But Catholic?] The Reverend Dctor asks is the Church so far out of touch with the mainstream as the list indicates? Where are the new Bl Cardinal Newmans, the new Graham Greenes, Evelyn Waughs, Malcolm Muggeridges?

I'll continue this and ask why is it so different elsewhere? The US recognises its Catholic Intellectuals and amongst the Clergy and 'professional' [in the real [i.e. good] sense] Catholic laity they have some really big hitters! Look at some of their {Arch]Bishops and Cardinals who are world-renowned for their intellect and erudition...Then there's Fr Benedict Groeschel, Fr Corapi, George Weigel, Michael Voris,Fr Frank Pavone, Fr Mitch Pacwa and on and on and on....it's phenomenal - the spirit of Fulton Sheen continues....

But in England and Wales?
Who do we have?
Let's face it shall we - Preaching and Evangelising have gone out of fashion in perfidious Albion
Our Bishops are most definitely NOT advocates for, defenders of, or evangelists expounding the One, True Faith.
Our Intellectuals and Academics much prefer to stick to their own specialised elitist circles and write for them
- whether it be desiccated tomes on the liturgy or Church history or autobiographies...hiding from the faithful.

Ever heard of Joyce Meyer? I wish to God she was a Catholic - but she's a better Christian preacher than ANYTHING I have ever heard from the Catholic Church in this country for decades...

The Redemptorists used to be fantastic - their missions would be phenomenal - unforgettable - and the Churches would be packed to bulging - even in the siales and chapels- children by the hundred sitting on the sanctuary because there was simply no room - and oecumenical? Ye gods! They were so popular we'd have atheist spouses, anglicans, methodists, jehovah's witnesses and the staunchest Orangemen or starchiest Eastern Star Matriarch for whom being seen in a Church would normally be a 'black affront'...but they were NOT going to miss out on the 'Reds' being in town...
What happened? Oh the Redemptorists found publication more lucrative, they found that watering down the faith made it more accommodating for themselves and the Conference/Diocesan keepers of the purse-strings....

What went wrong?
There's a tale of the Old Desert Fathers:
St Antony was praying in the desert when the devil dropped in to say hello, after the regular banter and boasting of his temptations throughout the world the exasperated Devil declared:
"Antony you pray for hours depriving yourself of sleep - I NEVER sleep;
Antony you spend days fasting and abstaining - I NEVER eat;
But Antony you are humble - and so you have defeated me...."

So answer one is Humility - we stopped being humble - oh we didn't stop being 'demure and self-effacing on occasions' but it was a sham...we lost the humility.
How? Well we became a mixture of Cafeteria Catholic and Pharisee - we knew all the answers and where the Church disagreed? Well the Church should change....but more on that at a later time.

WE STOPPED RECOGNISING THE SUBSISTENT TRUTH - THE PERSON OF CHRIST - WITHIN HIS MYSTICAL BODY - THE ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH

Answer two is easier and more recognisable:
How do you recognise a good text-book? Or a good history book or instruction manual?
The author is clever enough, wise enough, capable enough, experienced enough and empathic enough to be able to teach the truth with a childlike simplicity that anyone - given time and patience- can understand.
[The great language-mentor Michel Thomas argued that there is no such thing as a bad student - only bad teachers]

Oliver Wendell Holmes stated
"I would not give a fig for the simplicity this side of complexity, but I would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity."

Was St Paul anything but a scholar? Was Chesterton an ill-read buffoon? Was CS Lewis a school drop-out with only a cse in woodwork to his name? Is St Francis de Sales being the patron Saint of writers a woefully inept designation? Are the two Ss Theresa not intellectually qualified to be considered as Real Doctors of the Church? Is Benedict XVI a 'bit backward'?

Then why have their writings the overwhelming simplicity of Truth which leaps from the page and thrusts itself all so simply and readily into our understanding?

Happenstance I have two moral theology books next to my keyboard - One is a massive annotated tome by Germain Grisez where he expounds every conceivable aspect of Catholic Morality - endlessly debating this and that aspect, reflecting on the overawing 'profundity' and 'complexity' and 'struggle', always advising caution in one's choices, reticence requiring reflection and never assessing anything's moral worth or the potential rightness/wrongness of an action without a scrupulous dialectical analysis. It gets to the stage wherehe refuses to make a decision on the important things while being rigoristly opinionated about the little and somewhat irrelevant things.
Next to it lies a tiny little battered, torn, coffee-stained copy of the Domincan Fr Gerald Vann's " Morals and Man" and I'm telling you now - That book has taken me to hell and back - led to sleepless nights - hours gazing distantly mid-air in thought - a whole day at work or doing housework and I cannot recollect a single instant of it because I've been lost in thought at a paragraph - or single sentence.
But it's a 'simple' book - very readily understandable - if one made the attempt one could complete it in a few hours..but it's diamond dust - for it contains that simplicity past complexity [something sadly lacking in the Grisez]

Take a look at contemporary theology books, or spirituality books and you find they are usually of two types - the first is dumbed-down and watered down beyond credulity - wasn't worth writing let alone reading.
The second type is even worse - exercises in narcissistic vanity; intense, complicated references and sesquipedalian terms to obfuscate and make the simplest of notions or principles incomprehensible - allusions to scripture or some 19th century german philosopher or a 17th century french poet or a dodgy latin phrase from some 'ahead of his time' monk who was burned for heresy in 1232 or whatever - all of which simply confuse rather than substantiate or edify; references to the greek nuances [usually eschaton and kerygma find their way in ] and page after page of guesswork by the author - usually on the hypothetical applications or metaphysical speculations or secret unmentioned motives or the conjectured actions of what someone might have thought, said or done. These authors should be charged for crimes against their own intellect - to have the arrogant deceit to hide a reality behind so many clouds of linguistics and ill-conceived flights of fancy - all to seem as if one is clever? Well - it's a travesty!

So - it's either Books you don't need to read: Or Books impossible for anyone to understand [I'm practically certain most of the authors can't - and those who swear by them as 'prescribed texts' have never even attempted to read them]

So answer two is intelligence and understanding - WE STOPPED CONVEYING THAT TRUTH

Now this is a long-term issue - it goes back over a century and for the necessity of brevity I'm going to have to refer you to a previous post and provide you with the conclusion here - We stopped using apologetics - we simply stated the what and the how without ever giving any cogent reasoned answers 'Why..."

Answer three is the doozie...so I'll state it then try to explain it - although I remain utterly incredulous.

WE WANT TO BELONG, WE WANT TO PLAY, WE DON'T WANT TO OFFEND OR MAKE OTHER PEOPLE THINK LESS OF US - WE WANT TO BE LIKED, WE WANT TO BE POPULAR, WE WANT TO BE ACCEPTED....
....BUT THE TRUTH GETS IN THE WAY! SO WE CONCEAL IT, OR HIDE FROM IT, OR DENY IT OR GO OUT OF OUR WAY TO DISPROVE IT - ALL BECAUSE WE WANT TO BELONG.

Virtually every day I have spent on the internet speaking on a Catholic issue I have been accused of being doctrinaire or cruel or uncharitable or thoughtlessly insensitive or arrogantly dismissive or ignorantly presumptuously unwilling to compromise or accommodate or give people's opinions and beliefs 'the respect they deserve'. I have been denounced as a 'Taliban' Catholic or an 'Ultra' - "more Catholic than the Pope" - an insensitive abusive Pharisee - a Jansenist - who 'neither reflects nor relates contemporary Catholic understanding or teaching on the issues' and I should be roundly condemned accordingly [One dear Catholic lady [an Austen Ivereigh fan] even suggested I should have my children removed by social services because I was so despicably hateful and must be prevented from indoctrinating my children with this vitriol].

I'm going to leave the response to Chesterton:

"If a critic tells a particular lie, that particular lie can be pointed out. If he misses a specific point, that point can be explained. If he is really wrong in this or that, it will be on this or that that the insulted person will eagerly pounce. But “malice and spite” are vague words which will never be used except when there is really nothing to pounce on. If a man says that I am a dwarf, I can invite him to measure me. If he says I am a cannibal, I can invite him to dinner. If he says I am a coward, I can hit him. If he says I am a miser, I can give him half-a-sovereign. But if he says I am fat and lazy (which is true), the best I can answer is that he speaks out of malice and spite. Whenever we see that phrase, we may be almost certain that somebody has told the truth about somebody else."
The Illustrated London News, 13 November 1909.

We are caled to be 'The Salt of the Earth" - both a part of it yet apart from it .
Now I don't know if anyone's said it before but here's the deal:

GETTING ON WITH GOD AND GETTING ON WITH LIFE IS NOT THE SAME AS GETTING ON WITH EVERYONE AND GETING ON IN LIFE.

So When Fr Alexander Lucie-Smith asks us "Where are the Catholic Intellectuals" The answer is sadly the majority have ceased to be intellectuals [much preferring to be elitist incoherent 'academics', populist dumbed-down well-loved 'characters' or socialite raconteurs who 'know everybody worth knowing'] and in the process they have also ceased to be 'public' Catholics - the price of Catholicism being far too high to be accommodated or acceptable in Modern social circles...The true Catholic Intellectuals are far too invisibly getting on with God and getting on with Life - and that's definitely not part of the Observer's understanding of the social milieu.

Where are our modern day Chesterbellocs and Muggeridges and Fulton Sheens?
They're all around us - they're just not wanted.
Remember the adage of the Abbot of Worth?

"The Media is no place to evangelise!!!!"

So many are so willing to oblige him!!!

Bloggers and The Vatican

2011-05-05T01:29:00.000+01:00

Living the Faith Radically pt 3

2011-05-01T23:04:00.000+01:00

2011-04-24T16:05:00.000+01:00

The Road to Emmaus

2011-04-24T14:06:00.000+01:00

Exultet

2011-04-24T13:49:00.000+01:00

The Evlogitaria of the Resurrection (Blessed art Thou, O Lord, teach me ...

2011-04-24T13:45:00.000+01:00

Traditional Latin Catholic Mass: Easter Sunday

2011-04-24T12:24:00.001+01:00

It was all True after all!!!
He is Risen: All else follows...
An Exultant Easter to One & All!!

Living the Faith Radically pt 2

2011-04-23T15:23:00.000+01:00

Living the Faith Radically pt 1

2011-04-21T16:42:00.000+01:00

Hinc illae lacrimae [My argument FOR a Guild of Catholic bloggers] Pt 1

2011-04-19T19:04:00.001+01:00

It's never enough to Love someone: That someone needs to know they are Loved....

St Francis de Sales reminds us :

CONSIDER how noble and excellent a thing your soul is, endowed with understanding, capable of knowing, not merely this visible world around us, but Angels and Paradise, of knowing that there is an All-Mighty, All-Merciful, Ineffable God; of knowing that eternity lies before you, and of knowing what is necessary in order so to live in this visible world as to attain to fellowship with those Angels in Paradise, and the eternal fruition of God.

Yet more;—-your soul is possessed of a noble will, capable of loving God, irresistibly drawn to that love; your heart is full of generous enthusiasm, and can no more find rest in any earthly creation, or in aught save God, than the bee can find honey on a dunghill, or in aught save flowers. Let your mind boldly review the wild earthly pleasures which once filled your heart, and see whether they did not abound in uneasiness and doubts, in painful thoughts and uncomfortable cares, amid which your troubled heart was miserable.

When the heart of man seeks the creature, it goes to work eagerly, expecting to satisfy its cravings; but directly it obtains what it sought, it finds a blank, and dissatisfied, begins to seek anew; for God will not suffer our hearts to find any rest, like the dove going forth from Noah’s ark, until it returns to God, whence it came. Surely this is a most striking natural beauty in our heart;—why should we constrain it against its will to seek creature love?

In some such wise might you address your soul: “You are capable of realising a longing after God, why should you trifle with anything lower? you can live for eternity, why should you stop short in time? One of the sorrows of the prodigal son was, that, when he might have been living in plenty at his father’s table, he had brought himself to share the swine’s husks. My soul, you are made for God, woe be to you if you stop short in anything short of Him!” Lift up your soul with thoughts such as these, convince it that it is eternal, and worthy of eternity; fill it with courage in this pursuit.

...St Francis continues:

CONSIDER the Eternal Love God has borne you, in that, even before our Lord Jesus Christ became Man and suffered on the Cross for you, His Divine Majesty designed your existence and loved you. When did He begin to love you? When He began to be God, and that was never, for He ever was, without beginning and without end. Even so He always loved you from eternity, and therefore He made ready all the graces and gifts with which He has endowed you. He says by His prophet, “I have loved thee” (and it is YOU that He means) “with an everlasting love, therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.” And amid these drawings of His Love He led you to make these resolutions to serve Him.
What must resolutions be which God has foreseen, pondered, dwelt upon from all eternity? how dear and precious to us! Surely we should be ready to suffer anything whatsoever rather than let go one particle of the same. The whole world is not worth one soul, and the soul is worth but little without its good resolutions.

...and our mantra? The words we must repeat every day to remember who we are - The Declaration of the Soul:

“I am not mine own, whether I live or whether I die, I am the Lord’s. There is no longer any me or mine, my ‘me’ is Jesus, my ‘mine’ is to be His. Thou world, wilt ever be thyself, and hitherto I have been myself, but henceforth I will be so no more.”
We shall indeed not be ourselves any more, for our heart will be changed, and the world which has so often deceived us will in its turn be deceived in us; our change will be so gradual that the world will still suppose us to be Esau, while really we are Jacob.

What I ask of the Bishops Conference of England & Wales: Why Must The Show Go On?

2011-03-06T02:25:00.000Z

Ancient Spiritual Revolution vs New Humanism by Catholic priest

2011-02-28T15:35:00.000Z

Justin Bieber & God

2011-02-21T14:32:00.000Z

Edward Elgar : The Apostles ( Prologue)

2011-02-20T17:56:00.000Z

Repost: The Crisis was never new....

2011-02-16T15:22:00.002Z

From 'On The Holy Spirit' by St Basil the Great [329-379] ChXXX

76. To what then shall I liken our present condition?

It may be compared, I think, to some naval battle which has arisen out of time old quarrels, and is fought by men who cherish a deadly hate against one another, of long experience in naval warfare, and eager for the fight.

Look, I beg you, at the picture thus raised before your eyes.

See the rival fleets rushing in dread array to the attack.

With a burst of uncontrollable fury they engage and fight it out.

Fancy, if you like, the ships driven to and fro by a raging tempest, while thick darkness falls from the clouds and blackens all the scenes so that watchwords are indistinguishable in the confusion, and all distinction between friend and foe is lost.

To fill up the details of the imaginary picture, suppose the sea swollen with billows and whirled up from the deep, while a vehement torrent of rain pours down from the clouds and the terrible waves rise high.

From every quarter of heaven the winds beat upon one point, where both the fleets are dashed one against the other. Of the combatants some are turning traitors; some are deserting in the very thick of the fight; some have at one and the same moment to urge on their boats, all beaten by the gale, and to advance against their assailants.

Jealousy of authority and the lust of individual mastery splits the sailors into parties which deal mutual death to one another.

Think, besides all this, of the confused and unmeaning roar sounding over all the sea, from howling winds, from crashing vessels, from boiling surf, from the yells of the combatants as they express their varying emotions in every kind of noise, so that not a word from admiral or pilot can be heard.

The disorder and confusion is tremendous, for the extremity of misfortune, when life is despaired of, gives men license for every kind of wickedness.

Suppose, too, that the men are all smitten with the incurable plague of mad love of glory, so that they do not cease from their struggle each to get the better of the other, while their ship is actually settling down into the deep.

77. Turn now I beg you from this figurative description to the unhappy reality.

Did it not at one time appear that the Arian schism, after its separation into a sect opposed to the Church of God, stood itself alone in hostile array? But when the attitude of our foes against us was changed from one of long standing and bitter strife to one of open warfare, then, as is well known, the war was split up in more ways than I can tell into many subdivisions, so that all men were stirred to a state of inveterate hatred alike by common party spirit and individual suspicion.

But what storm at sea was ever so fierce and wild as this tempest of the Churches? In it every landmark of the Fathers has been moved; every foundation, every bulwark of opinion has been shaken: everything buoyed up on the unsound is dashed about and shaken down.

We attack one another.

We are overthrown by one another.

If our enemy is not the first to strike us, we are wounded by the comrade at our side.

If a foeman is stricken and falls, his fellow soldier tramples him down.

There is at least this bond of union between us that we hate our common foes, but no sooner have the enemy gone by than we find enemies in one another.

And who could make a complete list of all the wrecks?

Some have gone to the bottom on the attack of the enemy, some through the unsuspected treachery of their allies, some from the blundering of their own officers.

We see, as it were, whole churches, crews and all, dashed and shattered upon the sunken reefs of disingenuous heresy, while others of the enemies of the Spirit of Salvation have seized the helm and made shipwreck of the faith. 1 Timothy 1:19

And then the disturbances wrought by the princes of the world 1 Corinthians 2:6 have caused the downfall of the people with a violence unmatched by that of hurricane or whirlwind.

The luminaries of the world, which God set to give light to the souls of the people, have been driven from their homes, and a darkness verily gloomy and disheartening has settled on the Churches.

The terror of universal ruin is already imminent, and yet their mutual rivalry is so unbounded as to blunt all sense of danger.

Individual hatred is of more importance than the general and common warfare, for men by whom the immediate gratification of ambition is esteemed more highly than the rewards that await us in a time to come, prefer the glory of getting the better of their opponents to securing the common welfare of mankind.

So all men alike, each as best he can, lift the hand of murder against one another. Harsh rises the cry of the combatants encountering one another in dispute; already all the Church is almost full of the inarticulate screams, the unintelligible noises, rising from the ceaseless agitations that divert the right rule of the doctrine of true religion, now in the direction of excess, now in that of defect.

On the one hand are they who confound the Persons and are carried away into Judaism; on the other hand are they that, through the opposition of the natures, pass into heathenism.

Between these opposite parties inspired Scripture is powerless to mediate; the traditions of the apostles cannot suggest terms of arbitration.

Plain speaking is fatal to friendship, and disagreement in opinion all the ground that is wanted for a quarrel.

No oaths of confederacy are so efficacious in keeping men true to sedition as their likeness in error.

Every one is a theologue though he have his soul branded with more spots than can be counted. The result is that innovators find a plentiful supply of men ripe for faction, while self-appointed scions of the house of place-hunters reject the government of the Holy Spirit and divide the chief dignities of the Churches.

The institutions of the Gospel have now everywhere been thrown into confusion by want of discipline; there is an indescribable pushing for the chief places while every self-advertiser tries to force himself into high office.

The result of this lust for ordering is that our people are in a state of wild confusion for lack of being ordered; the exhortations of those in authority are rendered wholly purposeless and void, because there is not a man but, out of his ignorant impudence, thinks that it is just as much his duty to give orders to other people, as it is to obey any one else.

78. So, since no human voice is strong enough to be heard in such a disturbance, I reckon silence more profitable than speech, for if there is any truth in the words of the Preacher,

"The words of wise men are heard in quiet," Ecclesiastes 9:17

...in the present condition of things any discussion of them must be anything but becoming.

I am moreover restrained by the Prophet's saying,

"Therefore the prudent shall keep silence in that time, for it is an evil time," Amos 5:13

...a time when some trip up their neighbours' heels, some stamp on a man when he is down, and others clap their hands with joy, but there is not one to feel for the fallen and hold out a helping hand, although according to the ancient law he is not uncondemned, who passes by even his enemy's beast of burden fallen under his load. Ezekiel 23:5

This is not the state of things now. Why not? The love of many has waxed cold; Matthew 24:12 brotherly concord is destroyed, the very name of unity is ignored, brotherly admonitions are heard no more, nowhere is there Christian pity, nowhere falls the tear of sympathy.

Now there is no one to receive "the weak in faith," Romans 14:1 but mutual hatred has blazed so high among fellow clansmen that they are more delighted at a neighbour's fall than at their own success.

Just as in a plague, men of the most regular lives suffer from the same sickness as the rest, because they catch the disease by communication with the infected, so nowadays by the evil rivalry which possesses our souls we are carried away to an emulation in wickedness, and are all of us each as bad as the others.

Hence merciless and sour sit the judges of the erring; unfeeling and hostile are the critics of the well disposed. And to such a depth is this evil rooted among us that we have become more brutish than the brutes; they do at least herd with their fellows, but our most savage warfare is with our own people.

79. For all these reasons I ought to have kept silence, but I was drawn in the other direction by love, which "seeks not her own," 1 Corinthians 13:5 and desires to overcome every difficulty put in her way by time and circumstance.

I was taught too by the children at Babylon, that, when there is no one to support the cause of true religion, we ought alone and all unaided to do our duty.

They from out of the midst of the flame lifted up their voices in hymns and praise to God, reeking not of the host that set the truth at naught, but sufficient, three only that they were, with one another.

Wherefore we too are undismayed at the cloud of our enemies, and, resting our hope on the aid of the Spirit, have, with all boldness, proclaimed the truth.

Had I not so done, it would truly have been terrible that the blasphemers of the Spirit should so easily be emboldened in their attack upon true religion, and that we, with so mighty an ally and supporter at our side, should shrink from the service of that doctrine, which by the tradition of the Fathers has been preserved by an unbroken sequence of memory to our own day.

A further powerful incentive to my undertaking was the warm fervour of your "love unfeigned," and the seriousness and taciturnity of your disposition; a guarantee that you would not publish what I was about to say to all the world,—not because it would not be worth making known, but to avoid casting pearls before swine. Matthew 7:6

My task is now done.

If you find what I have said satisfactory, let this make an end to our discussion of these matters. If you think any point requires further elucidation, pray do not hesitate to pursue the investigation with all diligence, and to add to your information by putting any uncontroversial question.

Either through me or through others the Lord will grant full explanation on matters which have yet to be made clear, according to the knowledge supplied to the worthy by the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Repost Pt 5: The Road in Ruin...

2011-02-16T13:20:00.002Z

I'm going to use an analogy which I'll call the Roman Road:
The War went on for millennia ; then our Saviour came and victory was ours...the way home was made clear - over the centuries all those seeking to return , to continue their long journey homeward were led towards a long road, straight and true, which led directly there...
it was well fortified and defended, it was always occupied with many thousands of travellers and companions all making the same journey ; enlightening, consoling, sharing all that they were and had...there were places of rest and refuge along the way, and in them we could regain our strength and determination to carry on and free ourselves from any unnecessary burdens and hear stories and inspirational poems and songs of long past travellers....

but darkness covered the land, local administrators , guardians of the road became negligent, lazy and indifferent to the safety of the travellers, signposts were torn down, lamp-posts were extinguished, regions of the road crumbled ,collapsed and fell into disrepair and became prone to bandit raids, towns and villages became cold and silent and laden with phantoms , to replace stone buildings mere shacks were erected, but few sought solace there - the laughing and singing rang hollow and less was talked about the journey or the way ahead and more about enjoying the now or the hovel in which they dwelled... the well known guides and community leaders hid themselves away most of the time, only emerging when it was deemed necessary for civic duty...previously where everyone knew either your name or was happy to make your aquaintance and become a friend and fellow traveller for life, more often there are secret people hidden in shadows, there are many orangeboxes along the road, upon each stands a scruffy individual telling everyone of shortcuts home, of sideroads which lead off the main road which are more comforting and secure...some declare that the road is no longer the way home, some shout that home is no longer there and we should stay put and make the best of it here...sometimes the braver innkeepers argue back or send these loudmouths away with a flea in their ear, but sometimes the innkeepers allow these renegades into their taverns with open arms and can be seen avidly discussing their ideas with the innkeeper in the backroom...
sometimes the travellers gather together to ask the town leader how they can continue on, do they have a map or directions...the town leader does not mention the older accurate maps but more recent local scribblings or sketches , even some he has made himself - which he is ready to give to anyone [for a modest fee of course!?]....want me to continue ? or are you depressed enough ?

let's be really honest;
the problem on a diocesan level is not that it is run badly by people of ill or misconceived will....
but that it is hardly being run by people of virtually no will at all !

To be blunt and 'analytical' : Dioceses are suffering from clinical depression...

Complacency, disillusionment, anxiety, fear, abject loneliness, despondency, denial of the real problems, no visible solutions, no hint of hope....

a few remedies are sought : hasty activity, making oneself too busy to contemplate what's wrong; making grand designs or schemes and putting all one's eggs in the one basket or risking everything with a single throw of the dice, then there is the seeking out of what people think is the problem - they ask among themselves and come to the conclusion that there is ;
a] nothing wrong - how could there be ? we're here!
b] something that needs to be done but it must be set off for the future because there aren't enough people or resources or we are too busy doing other things at the moment.
c] there was something that could have been done but now it's too late and we have made our bed now we have to lie in it and make do...
d] this is all part of a growing process, like birth pangs, the darkest hour before the dawn
e] we're already doing everything we can, we have already considered everything and it's all working wonderfully thankyou if only you'd allow us to get on with it and stop bothering us...

Ok, now imagine for some reason we have a new bishop who's been in a monastery most of his adult life and has no idea whatsoever what's facing him in his new diocese : what does he encounter?

Well for a start most of his authority within the diocese has been usurped from him !!? From Rome ? Of course not ! By his predecessor placing his own men in positions of authority ? No. Guess again...
Diocesan government has become riddled with 'quangos' ; most under the ostensible auspices of that dreaded behemoth known as the conference of bishops - education, RCIA, youth programmes, catechetical material in schools AND the diocesan representatives on those commissions, committees, quorums, clades, inner-rings [clerics or lay-people the bishop may personally loathe or consider a heretical reprobate]- they decide practically everything - even the movement of feast days , provincial timetables , a significant budget from the diocesan purse, etc , etc etc.. all the exigences which used to be within the sole remit of the bishop has been 'tendered out on a long-term lease'!!!

so the Bishop looks to his personnel ; and weeps...
the good people ? the effective, orthodox, holy men ? well there are a few but they are stuck clinging to their parts of the diocese for grim death trying to keep them into a coherent semi-functioning machine - simply none of them can be moved except maybe slid across to a larger more encumbent parish to replace the bloody useless ,if not dangerous or mentally unstable ones, some will be sick and elderly and incapable of doing anything more than they are possibly doing now, in fact for a few charity demands that some of their burden should be removed...
of the rest ?
well there will be a handful of priests going through a severe mid-life crisis - they will be in trouble, crisis of faith, mental exhaustion, deep feelings of all the things I've mentioned in previous postings, and for some they will have been up to less than a modal priestly behaviour.
The youngsters ? half of these priests are bleeding useless - they don't know what they're doing, they don't believe in half of what they're doing and most of the time they do as little as possible anyway or they're trying to find any excuse in the book to get out of doing what they are supposed to be doing....
some of the priests in the diocese will already be working to a diferent agenda and trying to impose it upon the diocese - the 'professional' clerics of the quangos, together with their covens of laity. the bishop either submits fully, attempts to waylay them or sidetrack their authority, or commences a long drawn out war of attrition attempting to regain his power and authority back from them...
there will be the odd tin pot tyrant who needs either kicked out of his post, or put out to pasture or merely deprived of a few of his more capable assistant priests who are being too well moulded into his image and likeness; and a few positions of power may need to be taken away from him too...
there will be a few surprisingly capable priests who are imply not being used to their full abilities ? why? diocesan politics - maybe they just don't fit in, or have made enemies in the wrong places or are just unwilling to conform to certain other people's agenda, and sometimes through just sheer negligence and oversightedness....
but within the majority ? who are the ones readily available for promotion ?

of course there are nominal jobs of little import these days as their roles are simply not used or implemented - things like 'vicars of clergy', deans [deanery structure is a joke!] ,boundary commissioner ,archivists etc - anyone can have these as they mean very little - there are the diocesan finances which are the main import so there will only be a select few capable of these anyway...
but the rest ? the bishops secretaries? the chancellors? vicar general ? the deans of the cathedral ? vocations director , canonical lawyers etc... well, unless the bishop is willing to go against the grain and pick the best for the job [something that normally only happens infrequently now, the bishop's secretary is mainly the priest the bishop loathes the least - the vicar general ? the least offensive or antagonistic , the vocations director ? the young charismatic priest...as well as that there will be a few positions that have to be filled with certain people 'expected' to get the job...] - so unless the bishop is willing to compromise some other aspect of the running of the diocese, he is compelled to pick from a select bunch :

these are invariably the ones whom the bishop can afford not to have have on the front line in the major parishes, the ones least likely to be boatrockers, the bland , the mediocre, the clever but not too clever [even though they may be ostensibly academic and may have had a couple of books or articles published - in this scenario intelligence has nothing to do with wisdom - and a bishop doesn't want any too wise in such positions - they'd be much better in a big parish] , the ones trained more as administrators or accountants, the ones with a head for business or are experienced with liaison with all the quangos but aren't part of the system, the paper shuffler, the inoffensive, the academic who did their licence in something worthwhile like canon law...
the non-entity who has just been around for such a long-time....the ones with 'links' to people in the know....

so regrettably the administration is run by the second-raters with a few non-raters thrown in and a couple of "I'd love to sack them now but I dare not - they're better inside the tent widdling out..." types...
there maybe the odd 'clerical celebrity' too - one famous for their being a member of some quango or commission or for writing something - whatever - they assume the authority by popular assent among the 'professionals' and it's better to go with the flow , even if you think they're either useless, just plain wrong, or responsible for the end of civilization as we know it !!

But have you noticed one thing?
I haven't mentioned a single thing regarding what the priest believes, how he acts, or how well he has integrated his priesthood into his pastoral life - why ? because the majority of the time when considering people for positions of authority and responsibility in a diocese it's an irrelevance !!! Unless the bishop directly goes out of his way to ensure it happens !
And a lot of the time the price is too high for the diocese and its structural integrity if the bishop chooses the best as his closest associates.

So what happens ?
when it comes to the choice of the next bishops ? among whom do the conference of bishops, the papal nuncios etc look to recommend ?
well whom do they know ?
who have they encountered?
who is 'sound' according to their agenda?
who is popular ?

you see here is the bitterest , deepest irony of them all...this is the age of the internet, the wi-fi, the blackberry, the mobile phone, the fax, video conferencing - you name it ...
this is supposed to be a global village...

would you be surprised to learn that the majority of clerics simply NEVER interact with each other except on the most major of diocesan occasions - some priest in the same town or city in neighbouring parishes may never speak to each other from one year to the next, the majority of priests in a diocese have neither had a decent conversation or any reasonable encounter with half of the rest of the diocesan priests - it's incredible ! it's ludicrous - but more than that it is highly morally disordered....

but this is the breeding ground for our new bishops...
and in such a stagnant pond how do you expect anything to truly flourish ?
sometimes the Holy Spirit works its way round human will and gets the right people in the right position, but all too often we get um...well?

This has been the worst written of all of these, and i apologise for it because it was written at lightning speed and with little real composition - but I'll have a go at trying to summarise what I'm poorly attempting to relate very shortly...

Repost pt 4: The Insulted & The Injured

2011-02-16T13:18:00.001Z

One cannot repudiate the simple fact that vatican II wrought a considerable amount of enthusiasm from some quarters....
but on the parish level there was an awkward confusion about what was really happening - it's with a deep irony that the majority of vociferous clerics about the subjects of the council were ardent traditionalists ; they naiively presumed that there would be a sweeping clean of the stables and a return to orthodoxy and orthopraxis amidst the tiny hints of rebellion in the US and northern europe and the missions. Although there were major stirrings among the seminarians , the younger and the 'professional' clergy ; the ordinary priest on the doorstep was reticent to admit what was really going on - because generally he had absolutely no idea - basically they presumed it was going to continue as 'business as usual'....

Oliver Wendell Holmes said :
" I would not give a fig for the simplicity this side of complexity, but I would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity."
Good Pope John sought to gather the Church together in the simplicity wrought from complexity; regrettably the church ended up with a faux simplicity and simpletons.

It came like a thief in the night : like a subcultural new fashion - punks, hippies, goths, yuppies, emos - we suffered with endurance the living nightmare of the 'trendies'!!!!
The onslaught and desecration became more rife than anything any Tudor Monarch had wrought upon the church...the puritanical iconoclasts of old merely destroyed buildings and lives; these new trendies crushed and destroyed the purposes behind the building and lives.

Ok I apologise now because I'm going to go contemporary theologically 'incorrect' and mention the devil....
The worst thing about modern society is not that it is more evil [even though it is] but it's the failure to recognise blantant evil when it's right before one's eyes !
Now we have some pretty infantile ideas about the devil - part the absolutely gut wrenching terror of the exorcist; part 1930's suave sophisticated elegant bounder - the english cad!! ; part Iago - the supreme suggester in our ears....

let's make it clear - whatever this devil is - he is infinitely more dangerous than this - he's a spoilt brat seeking to destroy everything and anything merely for the sake that given any opportunity , he can!! One of the best analogies of the devil in his actions within the modern church is to compare him with, believe it or not, The Grinch who stole Christmas !!!

sounds a bit spurious doesn't it ? Until you remember what the Grinch did - he stole all the presents to make everyone miserable...

So the devil and all his minions used every fault,failure and weakness within us to make an all-out assault on our gifts...
I call this 'The War of the Sacraments'
Just think about it - Suppose we were some great anti-catholic legion - where would we intensify our assault ?
Come on , imagine it ; what would you do ? how would you destroy the church from within ?
How about this way ?

First destroy that which makes a catholic a catholic ; destroy what makes a priest a priest...

a] On baptism - make it unimportant , an irrelevance , deny original sin exists or twist the concept of original sin into something utterly unbelievable; imply that all religions are equal and baptism is of no intrinsic significance or worth. corrupt it until it crumbles....

b] Matrimony - yet again make it non-sacramental, non unifying, non-Godlike in its love.... assault it from every corner ; suggest it is non-fungible; equivocate it with secular marriage or mere sexual liaisons or homosexuality; and go for the jugular - destroy the unity of a husband and wife by depriving them of the graces of a family, allow them to become obsessed with sexual awareness and fulfillment rather than intrinsic mutual love - destroy potential children, destroy the bond, destroy the love !

c] The sacrament of the Sick - attack the very notion of life itself and promote the hideous evils of dying with dignity - kill off the handicapped foetuses because they may suffer in life, allow those in PVS to be starved to death, kill off the 'burden' of the terminally ill - deny the right to live until one dies - euthanise , eugenicise, abort !

d] Confirmation - destroy responsibility and adult maturity altogether - reaffirm the right to act childishly,narcissistically, selfishly and irresponsibly - instigate a blame culture or one ridden with psychological neuroses and excuses for any behaviour - live and act as if one is a teenager for the rest of your life - refuse to take on the mantle, never assume responsibility...run away from the adult life in Christ - assault the gifts and fruits of the Holy Spirit by ridiculing them, denying them or tormenting those who excel in them or live their lives according to them.

But now we come to the Crux...The major assault which is destroying Holy Mother church from both without and within.
e] The dissolution of Holy Orders
f] The Abolition of the Confessional
g] The denial of, and the spitting upon the Blessed Sacrament

We know it's happening - we can witness it all around us...
Now I think I've gone into more than enough detail regarding the priesthood elsewhere, the majority are not acting like priests, for a lot of these they have no notion or concept of priesthood to begin with ; so they fumble along in the dark , hoping that whatever they do will either suffice or placate....

But as the question was regarding the appointment of Bishops - I feel I need to concentrate my emphasis to that of the way the violation of these last three sacraments has personally affected the clergy:

Primarily it is through a loss of identity and understanding of the vocation. Alienating them from the seven corporal and seven spiritual works of mercy :

To feed the hungry;
To give drink to the thirsty;
To clothe the naked;
To harbour the harbourless;
To visit the sick;
To ransom the captive;
To bury the dead.
To instruct the ignorant;
To counsel the doubtful;
To admonish sinners;
To bear wrongs patiently;
To forgive offences willingly;
To comfort the afflicted;
To pray for the living and the dead.

Secondly it is through isolation and ignorance - remove all proper education and instruction from the sacred traditions and wisdoms ; remove them from the flock and make them devoid of any experience or understanding of their human condition. It thus deprives the clerics of the graces of the cardinal virtues: Prudence, temperance, fortitude and justice.

The easiest way to do this ? Make the confessional redundant, prevent the priest interacting with his people - stop the practice of home visiting - make the priest isolated from and ignorant of all the people around him.

Thirdly it is by depriving the priest of the ritual of being a priest - removing every habit or sacred ritual which complements or supplements and inspires the theological virtues : Faith, Hope & Love

Violate the mass, despoil it - de-sacralise it , demean and debase and de-spiritualise it; turn the symbolism on its head to represent the exact opposite of its intent

- Turn the mass, our participation in the ritual sacrifice of the public execution of God Incarnate for our Redemption - INTO A PARTY ROUND A TABLE!!!

- but most importantly - promote treatment of the most precious , sacred gift from God ; His very Body and Blood , instill the habit as one of overfamiliarity and disrespect verging on contempt ! No longer make the vessels valuable and beautiful and worthy to befit the King of Kings, rather turn them into bowls not fit for dogs to drink from ; no longer have the priest and people dress as if they are in the presence of royalty, no longer have the priest and people bow or kneel in homage of their God, no longer have the people receive the Blessed Sacrament ; compel them to give it to themselves...
destroy the dignity of the blessed sacrament , and you destroy every consequence that comes from that respect...

That's what mother Theresa meant when she said it brought her the most sadness !!!
A faithful catholic of a century ago would look upon the average contemporary mass of today with the horror and outrage of witnessing a satanic ritual - why ? the way we virtually spit upon the blessed sacrament through our indifference and abject negligence.

If a priest resides in this culture which disrespects the greatest of things ? how else will he act towards anything else ? save with an attitude distinctly devoid of reverence.

Lastly - once the priest is unaware of who they are, and no longer acting like a priest inside the church through prayer and ritual and respect/worship of the sacraments ; or outside the church pastorally within the community with respect for God's children,

once all the major damage is done ; impose the sin of Pride upon it all - poison it irrevocably through presumption and despair ; either make the cleric oblivious to these factors and allow him to continue as if everything is wonderful, or make him believe in nothing except his despondent futile ineptitude and the utter falsity of all that he and the church stands for.

... and to seal everything up - to prevent a change of heart , a damascene conversion, a metanoia ; ensure that the priest never encroaches upon the critical virtues - patience, gentleness and humility.

That's how to destroy the Church - it's a brilliant masterplan isn't it ???

Now, does any of this seem remotely familiar ?
Ok, on to the last part - what it's like in a diocese and why the best priests aren't becoming bishops....

Repost pt 3: It was the best of times: It was the worst of times...

2011-02-16T13:16:00.001Z

Word Picture:

The old structure within a diocese almost invariably ensured that the cream floated to the top.
The cleverest, wisest, most charismatic or empathic, the most talented, the best preachers or pastors or spiritual directors/confessors - even on the rare occasion the holiest of priests would manage to reach the top jobs/positions within a diocese - most of us have been graced with encountering the type of priest I'm referring to.
Now even if some of them weren't the best among pastoral priests ; they were assuredly the most capable or effective administrators, good chairmen or team leaders - and rarely were there any who had not experienced and obtained a deep level of understanding regarding the human condition and the spiritual necessities for societies and the individual.
because the priests were highly active and very much about the Lord's business it was more often than not quite easy to determine a cleric's capabilities and talents.
the Holy Spirit made the job of a Bishop a great deal easier by pushing the more capable and responsible priests to the fore.
Frequently a bishop would be fully aware that he could both rely on his clergy and could be assured that anyone he placed in a diocesan position of responsibility/authority was already tried and tested by time and had proved their worth on many occasions beforehand . It was more than likely that a person he had 'chosen' for a position would become his or another bishop's successor; and he could be proud of both his choice and have few qualms about the future in that cleric's hands.

Then came Vatican II.

Now there were already significant embryonic factors within the clerical and episcopal make-up:

a] The efficacy of priestly formation was being compromised by increasingly poor,irrelevant or out-of-date/overly zeitgeist training in seminaries; and the limiting of the considerations of the duties and responsibilities of Holy Orders - usually the source of this was the poor example of priests and the overlying ethos of the seminaries regarding priesthood [too many educators in pastoral ministry had little experience of being pastoral ministers!]

b] The increasing duties, responsibilities and demands upon the priest within the parish led to six significant consequences/types of clergy:

i] the Hero - the priest who seized the helm of responsibility in the storm to prevent all around them sinking - assuming an authority and duty merely by being the right person at the right time who saw the problem and acted upon it.
ii] the Envious - those antagonistic to the hero-type - there may be a vast array of reasons/causes/motivations behind their positions ; but nevertheless the predominant result is their begrudging the hero's position - how they act on that envy also manifests itself in varied forms - hostility, indifference, diammetrically opposing positions regarding doctrine or praxis, procedural antipathy, reticence to assist or even direct action against the 'hero'.
iii] the Tin Pot Dictator - the Master of his own Domain - not much more needs to be said as we have all encountered and experience such a type - it may be a virtuous and benign dictatorship or one that has compromised its authenticity and supped with the Prince of this World; but nevertheless they are still dictatorships and the priest has jeopardised spiritual authority by confusing it with the secular and temporal.
iv] the Reactionary - what are they opposing ? good grief ! it could be anything - the Pope, the bishop, certain clergy, Church teaching on sexuality or contraception or divorce or celibacy, liturgical practice, aspects of church dogma, it could be politically motivated or over-encultured with the spirit of the age [we've all suffered the hippy priests, the corporate downsizing thatcherite priests, the blairite spin/procedural committee priests...all too sad!]
v] the Counter-Revolutionary Uber-Traditionalist - could be some belligerent irish canon unwilling to change anything and stopping time somewhere mid 1928, ditto an almost anglo-catholic brideshead-type who revels in the bells, smells, frippery ; or the youngster outraged at the pragmatism/situationist ethics/abject relativism/sacrilegious liturgies/banale indolences of the reactionary clerics; and counteract with an overpietistic or overlegalistic pseudo-conservatism verging on sedevacantism. [yes this is surprisingly not a new phenomena or a product of the outrages in the late sixties and seventies- the tridentinista were already gathering forces in the forties/fifties being fully aware that there was going to be trouble ahead]
vi] the Recluse - the priest who ran away and hid from any controversy, who either swayed in the wind and agreed with everyone, or dissociated himself from the prevailing situation and got on with his own job in his own quiet way.

c] Systemic Ignorance of Fundamental Theology among the Clergy - this is the deficit of the teaching of the underlying 'why' that I referred to in the previous posting ; and led to the massive ruptures regarding doctrine/morality/liturgy/clerical praxis/ecclesiology among the clergy - let's be truthful - what we had was a schism - the only problem was that both left and right, liberal and traditionalist, were so inadequately trained and educated in all the subjects they purported to be experts on, that their ignorance prevailed, incompetence ensued; and many millions of catholics were deeply hurt in the process.

d] The Crisis in Faith - it was on its way - academia and intellectual realms and alleged 'colleges of excellence' were adopting every new fad or ideology or innovative philosophical/political/socio-cultural/anthropological process - chaos reigned.
pragmatism, relativism, demeaning post-hegelian political ideologies, behaviourism, nihilism , linguistic and logical positivism and many more ideologies all had pervasive contaminating influences ; and the ignorant ill-educated clerics and theologians became corrupted by these prevailing forces...
The results ? Well please refer to my first posting regarding anxiety and despondency.

e] The Crisis in identity [more later, but basically I'm referring to the loss of an authentic notion of a Unique Real Ordained Priesthood in contrast to 'vocational pastoral ministries']

f] The Crisis regarding the Love of God and consequently the reality of both Love and God. [ref. first posting]

g] Existential Angst and the authenticity of anything the cleric professes/represents/adheres to ; in the light of d,e & f.

Now One person in 1958 was more aware of the clerical situation than any other - Cardinal Ottaviani [indeed every member of the Vatican General Council] was inundated with reports/assessments/new writings on the impending crises regarding doctrine, morality, the liturgy and most especially the clergy:
So much so that when John XXIII announced the actuation of a Second Vatican Council one voice was heard echoing through St Peter's:
'E Pazz!!' [He's mad!!!]
to the cardinal it was like detecting a gas leak and lighting a match to see where it was coming from....

We must concede that many necessary reforms and considerations simply had to be addressed or redressed - but what happened at Vatican II and the reprehensible post-conciliar committees was a systemic fiasco of the first order....

One of its benefits was that indeed, all the sins/poisons that had previously only lurked in the mud - now hatched out !!!
The result was the disenfranchisement of tens of millions of catholics - they were left abandoned to the wolves...Holy Mother Church ruptured and millions of victims were left in its wake...

a price worth paying ?
I'm sorry, but I believe the price was too high; but I trust in God and his Divine Providence - I am certain that God did not leave us orphans ; that ultimately there MUST be a reason as to why this happened and why God allowed it to happen....
could it possibly be that had we remained the way we were we may have altered into some monolithic autarchy ? or could the world have finally confronted us head on and destroyed us all in its wake ?
I don't know , all I am sure of is that it was God's will ; and it is now a wake up call to action for every devout and orthodox sinful catholic...

maybe this was a baptism of fire in preparation for the terrible adversities ahead ?
I do not know - but I do know the affect it has had on the church at a Diocesan level - and in the choice of clerics - which is what I'll address in my next posting.

[to be continued]

Repost: Pt 2: The Enemy Within

2011-02-16T13:14:00.001Z

Nietzsche had a mandatory criterion for the possibility of God, meaning to Life etc ; and that was Love being eternal....

He could not believe it ; and I truly believe that the major source of the crisis in the Church is the simple fact that despite wanting to believe it, and all the verbiage and innovative ritual attempting to compensate or paper over the hints of disbelief, this lack of belief is prevalent.

But the unbelief isn't the disease, it's merely a symptom of something a lot more subtle.

The cause ? We need to go back a century and beyond...to the age of presumption and arrogance. Italy , France and Germany were beginning to settle down after generations of crisis; Britain and Ireland were beginning to reap the benefits of the decades-long struggle to re-integrate catholicism, The US was gaining the security in the power of money and distance from warring europe - and catholicism leapt on the bandwagon grasping the opportunity to thrive espcialy among the millions of immigrants, the British Empire was stealing a quarter of the world from its rightful owners and instigating 'peace' down the barrel of a gun and utilising every available natural resource - and we resided in the shadow of that effect ; The Church was gaining ground, there were no significant adversaries and theological/scriptural/moral/canonical and clerical spheres were beginning to become effective and powerful influences within societies; the social teaching of Leo XIII made this even more of a concrete visible active prevailing force - we built churches, hospitals, schools, junior and senior seminaries bulging at the seams - and it's here we begin to see the first signs of complacency...

I'm not going to go through a history lesson - it's all readily available to anyone interested - but the first major test to the Church in the new century was modernism. Now Pius X was truly a saint and he sought to remedy a crisis in a specific way - suppression of the questionable ; and the re-emphasising and reformed expression of age old dogmas and their doctrinal implementation and consequences - almost every available resource was oriented towards what the church teaches and how it is to be taught....

You see the problem ? It's very subtle , but here's the root of what followed - we were complacent in that we presumed that society and the individual were not going to significantly change in their outlooks and lifestyles...

Inadvertently we'd become contaminated with Hegelianism - we'd catholicized his notion of the Geist - the development and progression of society and the Church along a certain path - all that was required was a reiteration of 'the what and the how' of Church teaching ; the 'why?' we believe or act wasn't exactly ignored, but it was never deemed an absolute intrinsic necessity towards understanding and living the catholic faith - and anyway, catholic society possessed the capabilities to deduce the 'why' from the hearts and minds of those who thrived in the overwhelming thrall of the Church. Because we had a surplus of understanding 'the why' among the average cleric or devout parishioner, we merely assumed that feeding the faithful [and the trainee clergy] with 'the what and the how' was more than amply enough for doctrine and praxis to be sustained. We presumed that the monolith of the teaching authority of the church would suffice. We were negligent because we failed to notice the idol of 'Church authority' had feet of clay.

Thus the message of the 'why we believe and live that belief' was neglected and compromised; and in a way it became distorted and obfuscated into being perceived as not primarily a spiritual authority ; but more a regimented temporal [albeit religious] one...it was seen as 'surplus to requirement' to do anything other than 'state the faith', not continually prove it...it was seen as an unnecessary exigency to do anything other than 'show love of neighbour' through teaching, healing, feeding, housing, consoling and caring - very little effort was made to emphasise the 'why we love' or to validate or prove or remind the faithful 'what business we are about and why'

This negligence only took three generations to wreak havoc -war irreparably altered society and the clergy were already being contaminated by this black hole in their catechesis and training; the ignorance manifested itself in two ways:

a] questioning every aspect of the Church and the faith it professed and the morality it demanded; failing to realise that one was not personally equipped or experienced or educated enough to assess or discern the core motives and reasonings of the fundamental teachings, these people decided that they could work out their own , personalised theology, morality and ecclesiology - or sought answers from sources external to the church [regularly of the protestant ilk like Bultmann, Barth or Tillich]

b] defiantly refusing to contemplate the possibilities of the motives or reasonings behind the church teachings [possibly out of fear or a sense of possibly losing the newly acquired temporal power within a parish/diocese] and rather than attempt to understand the why ; instead blindly following what the church says to the letter [and possibly adding a more rigorist or pietistic flavour to it in the process] - 'Just do what you're told and stop asking questions!!!'

It was a lack of education, a dearth of understanding , and a childish arrogance [something only truly present among the ignorant] that led to the initial divergence of what we perceive now as progressive/liberal/neo marxist and the Ultra-traditionalist 'fascist'.

rather than being a Faith ; this ignorance allowed ideology to pervade and contaminate the ranks of the clergy.

But what about the parishes and dioceses ?

Well charitable activity, intense social interaction, continuous prayer and devotion and the machinations of the Holy Spirit through these corporal and spiritual works of mercy delayed or even halted the progression of the 'intellectual' malaise...but even within this there were detectable flaws, especially amongst the attitudes of certain clergy - whereas previously they had taken up the mantle of responsibility for their flock, burdened themselves, sacrificed and lived their love for the parish - with subsequent generations this responsibility and earned position of spiritual authority became distorted into the presumption of the younger priests [or the older priests who had been 'tainted by habit to forget the origins of things' ] that this clerical position was one of temporal , civic, social authority. The ostensible 'shepherd' slowly metamorphosed into a normatively benign well-meaning dictator !!! But this was by no means a universal occurrence - the high amount of clergy and their busy lives interacting with the communities allowed human living and loving to deflate a lot of clerical egos and autocratic ambitions....the only places it was truly likely to happen was where socio-cultural influences thrust the cleric into more than just a priest but a civic representative of authority - this usually occurred in either the rural backwaters [e.g. in ireland where the priest was practically a minor deity - we can still se it today in certain regions of the developing world or in the US among the ultra-conservative protestant bible belt pastors] or amongst the isolated or disenfranchised immigrant communities - Italians, Irish, Poles etc....

This clerical ambiguity of their role as a priest ,

and the ecclesiastical consequences of poorly trained catechetical intellectual ignorance ,

with the splitting of the church along the lines of ignorant loyalty [right-wing] and ignorant defiance [left-wing];

together with the rise in political ideologies of all flavours and their mixing with the realms of philosophy and social sciences and even transgressing into theology ;

all wrapped up in the social upheaval after the second world war - inevitably led towards Vatican II

....and we all know the consequences of that. [To be continued]

The Problem - A repost to help me think...

2011-02-16T13:12:00.001Z

Anyone who has known me for any length of time will tell you that one of my many annoying habits is repeating a single sentence which I've practically adopted as a motto for how to live my life - It was written by St Francis de Sales, exemplified through the praxis and pedagogy of St John Bosco, indeed it's been intrinsic to the life of every saint ;and it encapsulates Catholic Theology, Spirituality and Morality. It's quite a simple phrase really, one that's prone to being misunderstood and quoted as if it's merely something found on the back of a cornflake packet or in a fortune cookie ; but as Dostoyevsky told us , there is nothing under heaven that cannot be twisted, distorted or debased by men of ill will . It goes like this :

"It is never enough to love someone ; that someone has to know they are loved."

Now Mother Theresa was always a controversial figure , and no end of abuse was hurled at her when , in this world of wars, terrorism, sexual profligacy, abortion, poverty and disease rife in the developing world she stated :

"Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand."

Communion in the hand ? Is she crazy ? Well let me put it to you that the blessed Theresa was anything but...because if you look into what she's saying a little closer you'll arrive at some startling revelations about what is truly in crisis within the church. I'll return to this later.

I once gave a sermon during my time as a Pastoral Minister in the US - it centred around a question:

"For a catholic, what is the greatest 'object' in the world ?"

After qualifying the statement that the Blessed Sacrament was not truly solely of this world, and a catholic had already received the waters of baptism ...and after a few possibilities proposed to me by the congregation which I rejected; I pointed to the little box room in the corner of the church and said :

"There - that's the greatest object in the world !" and proceeded to explain why the confessional is so intrinsically important beyond our wildest imaginings....let me move on...

Now I'm sorry to be seemingly chaotic , but I do have a reason for beginning something , then leaving it hanging and proceeding to something apparently unrelated; but you must be asking by now what the heck has this to do with the clerical crisis ? Well please bear with me for a moment - I'm getting there.

Chesterton was one of the most significant adversaries of the sin of Pride - read any one of his apologetic essays and you will invariably find it having the overriding virtue of Humility as its fundamental tenet - but he goes beyond this to a great psychological insight - that Pride , and all its manifestations in arrogance, presumption or despair are grounded in two things : Ignorance and Anxiety - In order to be humble [ and thus be virtuous in any way ] you have to possess a freedom of spirit and an openness to understanding - a willingness to confront the unknown and face your fear.

Now the majority of people think it was FDR who said 'we have nothing to fear but fear itself';

actually the president plagiarised it from my old hero St F-d-S... and if you haven't read it before , I urge you with the deepest sincerity to read St Francis de Sales' chapter on Anxiety from his 'Introduction to The Devout Life' - it's one of the greatest pieces of psycho-analysis ever written. I've posted it already on this blog : here's the link

http://onthesideoftheangels.blogspot.com/2007/08/anxiety-psychological-genius-of-st.html

Our Lord and Saviour spent his entire life telling us to 'Be Not Afraid' ; and we poor, weak-willed sinners do everything and anything but listen to those words....

Aside from objective sin, Anxiety is the most dangerous phenomena as it compromises and jeopardises our freedom to accept God's overflowing graces or to act upon them. Not only do we run away from God , from the world and our neighbour, we run away and hide from ourselves.

The only way for this anxiety to be overcome is through the iron will of patience and unconquerable strength of gentleness ; in other words the only way is through Love.

Now we're nearly there: only a few more steps....

Now despite all its terrors and consequences , its hiding in the shadows, anxiety still resides in the shadow of Truth - even when it has lost everything else and dwells in confusion and delusion ; it still confronts and admits the validity and worth of Truth.

One can sink to an even deeper level...to one of despondency where Truth or untruth is not even considered; one is so scared of addressing the possibility of anything's truth or falsity, of its reality or its being merely an illusion, that one both denies or dismisses the necessity of confronting anything remotely hinting at those concepts, and when confronted with these phenomena one runs away from them. In other words not only are you lying to yourself and fully aware of the nature of the lie ; you also become a fully-fledged coward.

Cowardice ? can it really be that simple or obvious ? That we're so scared of being scared , so scared of being wrong, so scared of it all being a delusion, or a lie, or a nihilistic nightmare, that we simply refuse to acknowledge anything ; and would rather run away and hide in the faux-security of self-delusion . That we're so scared that our belief in God might neither be validated by God's reality, nor corroborated by our Human will that it is a truly some , if only weak, form of faith - we'd rather dismiss the concept of believing out of fear that we might be unable to believe...never risk loving or hoping out of sheer cowardice that we'd be unable to love or hope or have what we love or hope for confirmed by actually being made manifest?

No, it isn't that simple..how could it be ?

because it's actually more simple than that...

I asked my elder son a few years what being a catholic was all about...

His answer ?

"God loves you !"...[he kind of spoilt the moment by adding..."get used to it !" straight afterwards with a cheeky grin ; but the more I reflect on his words, the more I feel that this is the message for the world of today... if there is one thing the world and all its members needs to know - it's that God loves them....]

But what of Universal Divine Revelation ? Natural Theology ? The Incarnation, teachings, actions, passion, Death and Resurrection of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ...

Surely after all this we should be able to find the reflections of God through His Creation and the Truth in the Person of Christ in all our endeavours and interactions , surely we must see the working of the Holy Spirit in whom we Live , Move and have our Being in all we encounter and survey ?

No, because I truly believe for some of us the abyss has opened into an even deeper chasm where not only does the person not know they are loved, or believe they are loved, or even believe that they are in any respect lovable; No, they have sunk to the level where the concept of love as possessing any reality beyond genetic programming ,hormonal urges or evolutionary survival technique is beyond them.....

They don't believe in love...and truth be told, they don't believe in God.

So to return to the beginning... what can we say ? what can we do ?

Ensure that our neighbour knows they are loved - it's simple enough - but being simple it's also the most arduous, sacrificial , devastating , heart-breaking but ultimately rewarding thing we can ever do...

But What has this to do with the Crisis in the church and the clergy and the episcopacy ? and where does Mother Theresa's quote fit into this schema ? and what concrete implementations or policies can be actuated to remedy the situation...?

Well ? I'm coming to that...[to be continued]

Maybe a pertinent repost? #2

2011-02-08T15:06:00.000Z

{We were in the middle of arguing on Holy Smoke Blog regarding the HFE bill - and a few had referred to common sense science [which they equivocated with natural law] as being the source of our morality. I felt compelled to warn them of the inherant dangers within this stance; in that when the science crumbles; so too does the ethical reliance upon it}

I'm not speaking as some amateur who's read a few websites - I was compelled to read and research extensively for my double-thesis for Ethics on when Life begins :
Be very , very careful what you mean when you say life begins at conception ; ensure that you have your philosophical and ontological grounding as the first principle - the unique essence in potential which if no direct external force is applied it is internally directed [even if incapable of actuating it] towards becoming a human being ;
that this is the only tenable point in time when one cannot equivocate away this internal directing force.

This may seem ridiculous but you'd be amazed at the way Pope John Paul II's teaching of 'ensoulment at conception' was diretly turned against him by biologists and ethicists :

a] Ever wondered why there is a 14 day limit on embryo experimentation ? You'd be stunned at the answer - and utterly astounded that Baroness Warnock was considered a great intellect at the time.
14 days is deemed the time when it can be determined visually if there is either one or more embryos [twinning or recombination].
Therefore as it cannot be shown that there is either one or more it is impossible to say that 'ensoulment' [or unique psycho-personal individuation] occurs before this time.
i.e. Because you cannot tell under a microscope whether it's a single embryo or twins + ; it's morally acceptable to experiment on them before this time - because if there is such a thing as ensoulment it must occur after this !!!
Insane ? Most assuredly - but that's the grounds for the law of this land !
But supposing some pro-choice person was to corner you with this hypothetical:
Identical Twins - a fertilised embryo splits in two, now was there one individual who became two replicas, or one individual who suddenly had an adjacent replica, or one individual who perished and became two new entities, or one individual divided between the two entities ? How do you apply individuality and ensoulment in this regard ? head spinning yet ?
This is what happens when you try and rely on tenuous scientific support without reasoning the principles through first.

b] There are problems with 'conception' per se in that it isn't as cut and dried as everyone presumes.
Beware of stating the 'presumed case' because others may fallaciously attempt to destroy your case by applying exigent facts which don't disprove the philosophical case but they do hack away at the groundwork when one unnecessarily over-relies on the science.

For a start regularly more than one sperm penetrates the ovum - and in order to ensure genome integrity all other genetic material must be expelled from the ovum - evolution has made provisions for this and ensured that the actual genetic integration between the sperm and ova to form a zygote occurs between 24 and 48 hours after sperm penetration.

Next you have to worry about the 'Germaine Greer fallacy' - that of the fact that we do not know why around 30% of all fertilised concepti do not implant and are ejected [ you'll hear a lot of pro-choicers double this figure ; but there are many decent research papers out there which confirm the c.1/3 figure] - assuredly some are genetically defective [blighted ova] and would never develop so are expelled as an expediency for further potential to conceive - but regarding a significant percentage of those 'spontaneously' expelled they do not appear to be defective - we have no idea why this 'natural abortion' occurs.
Consequently you have the quite offensive and specious corollary of Germaine Greer that according to catholic sentiments regarding conception a priest should be holding requiem masses for sanitary towels.

You'll also hear of pro-choicers speaking of hydatidiform moles and choriocarcinoma as a [fallacious] substantive proof that sperm and egg do not axiomatically mean life ; therefore one can do what one wishes with all fertilised ova.
Pro-choicers equivocate the 'necessary' condition of fertilisation as being invalid by its 'insufficiency' - which is as logical as saying dynamite isn't explosive because the fuse sometimes fizzles out.

Then there's the implantation fallacy - one that's even used by reprehensible liberal catholics to justify the use of iuds, the morning after pill and even the contraceptive pill itself.
the idea is one of the fertilised embryo 'interfacing' with the mother - implanting and transmitting signals for the production of hormones triggering subsequent development of the four [misnomered] 'foetal membranes' .
The seed not being a real seed unless it's in the soil.
The embryo not being alive until it's implanted.
Imagine this notion as the tree falling in the woods not making a noise if there's no-one to hear it - grossly ridiculous epistemology deriving its justification from bastardised enlightenment idealism - you'll see the same fallacious reasoning all over the place - something doesn't exist until it makes its presence known ! Aristotle is spinning in his grave.

c] The nucleic acid problem .

I've already mentioned when fertilised an embryo can split into twins,triplets etc and this allows arguments condemning the notion of ensoulment.
does each twin get half a soul, or does an extra soul pop up or descend from heaven ; and what happens to the second soul if recombination [a regular risk in IVF] occurs ? does one human being contain two souls or does the soul vanish ?

but lets go all frankenstein - supposing we separated the embryo up cell by cell at an early stage and implant this genome into irradiated ova - thus producing dozens of siblings - does the multicell embryo contain one soul per cell in order to ensure each of these new embryos is ensouled or do these souls pop into existence when the new embryo is formed - if so what happens to the original soul ?

yes, this is obscene speculation - but it's all grounded in that single comment of His Holiness of blessed memory...get my point ?

let's go to the ultimate proposition - every cell in one's body could potentially produce a clone - supposing in a nightmare future billions of clones were made from a single human - from where would their souls derive unless the soul was not inherant within each and every cell ?

utterly ridiclous of course - alien and anathema to all we were trying to morally and ontologically defend within the unique individual deriving from conception who must be afforded all the rights and dignity as an entity which is directed towards a fully fledged living human being and person external from the womb - and be deemed as essentially human life without exception ; irrespective of the accidental consequences occurring to it which may not allow this to be completed.

what is a soul ?
how are we ensouled ?
are we even ensouled or is the process even more spiritually and supernaturally mysterious ?

We don't know !
Therefore we must always as a moral categorical imperative err on presumptive caution that irrespective of any scientific or metaphysical speculation - the conceptus is axiomatically a unique aspect of creation to its fullest extent which includes being created in God's image to its fullest extent regarding its possession of a soul.

We must NEVER transgress this principle by conspiring with presumed corollaries or corroborating scientific evidence which seem to justify our ontological and moral principles - it's building a house on sand; and sadly this is what Pope John Paul II, in all innocence and wondrous faith in the divine; inadvertently became embroiled in; by allowing his statements regarding our faith to be analysed out of context as scientific phenomena.

Yet again all I'm saying is beware
Rely on our fundamental moral principles and construct one's arguments accordingly - not on presumed scientific phenomena which seem to vindicate it.

{ A few responded [another e-mailed me] , implying I was speaking detrimentally of Pope John Paul II , who was highly educated with two doctorates yet never claimed to be an expert [they presumed I was claiming I was, although I never even implied it] on the issue so took advice from the experts - one in paticular referred to anyone wishing to know more on the subject should consult the Linacre.org site . This led to my response :}

...I made no reference to evangelium vitae or questioned its moral integrity or its potential contrariety with scientific evidence ; nor did I anywhere make any counterclaims regarding ensoulment or the validity of Pope John Paul II's statement.
I was referring to those who cling to these 'soundbites' and infer a great deal more to the point of hyperbolic construction of a principle grounded upon it - it's how every ideology begins.

I would never claim this was His Holiness' rationale; but I know there are a great deal of people out there who presume certain things grounded in these presumed 'factoids' and formulate their ethical stances accordingly - and the moment science appears to compromise or jeapordise that morality 'built on sand' it collapses. The moment we stopped arguing on our terms and attempted to take the fight to them on their ground - we were sunk.

Spend a decade arguing with pro-choice 'christians' who ground their morality on obfuscatory pro-choice propaganda built from mendacious embryological "old wives' tales" and you'll see where I'm coming from.

I didn't claim to be an expert on the subject ; but I am highly experienced in the argumentation on the subject - I have only a meaningless pseudo-honorary doctorate in logic ; but did spend nine years studying and researching life ethics at third level education - intimating I was blowing my own trumpet or fallaciously appealing to authority was below the belt.

I didn't go on an all-out assault on the warnock report because it would take weeks of typing just to scratch the surface of the travesty - I merely referred to one of its most outrageously irrational conclusions.

Nor would I refer anyone to the Linacre site as a primary resource for ethical instruction - because it isn't ! It's there to inform and relay principles and the arguments which flow from them - were the uninformed to refer to the articles without recourse to a fundamental catholic moral theological instruction regarding our basic moral principles - confusion would arise ; especially when contrary hypotheticals or opinions of past Church fathers and saints are made without qualification [because a reader's awareness of the catholic position is regularly presumed by the author].

If you think I'm being specious please allow me to take one example from Helen Watt's article on pre-implantation diagnosis.
Within it she assumes [I contend she presumes] [for argument's sake] that the entity before twinning is destroyed completely and the twins formed are entirely new entities.
Understand so far ? whether one agrees or not or simply has no idea isn't that important [however metaphysically earth-shattering]; but that which follows IS important:

"If, on the other hand, the conceptus does not have developmental potential in any environment, then it is not a human embryo, and not a human being."

She then proceeds further along this line of development 'as act' as being of axiomatic mandatory import.

Notice the far from subtle danger in all this ?
Consider the phenomena of spontaneous abortion of the apparently non-defective embryo ? Or for that matter the defective.

Extrapolate this to congenital or developmental defects within the embryo or foetus which make its viability impossible - travel farther along this line of argument and consider anencephalic foetuses .

Is Ms Watts implying that only that which develops or maintains the potential to develop is solely human ?
[Notice the affinity with the seed/soil corollary I mentioned earlier ?]

It would appear so ; and if she was it would be utterly contrary to catholic moral teaching [inherant since the Didache, but absolute since Pius IX] regarding the embryo from conception ; irrespective of its implantation or its spontaneous abortion - it possesses a full share of human dignity and authenticity in what von Balthasar and Benedict XVI refer to as 'a democracy of essence'.

But more than likely this statement was a mere oversight , never intended to be considered on its own ; but as an exigent aside to the main thrust of the argument relating to the dignity of pre-implantation embryos by clinicians.

Inadvertently in attempting to argue one case , she takes a little less care in qualifying her side-points and lets slip through an argument which if taken out of context could destroy everything she is attempting to argue.
Normatively this wouldn't matter one jot ; because the informed reader would immediately overlook the potential unintended consequences and see it solely in the light for which it was intended.

But let's supposing someone slightly less informed of the catholic principles were to read the article ?
and they had suffered miscarriages of embryos who through an internal fault would never reach full term ; or bore an anencephalic foetus ; and then read that comment ?
They would presume Ms Watts was saying their child was never a human being !
Or suppose a secular biologist directly seeking ethical loopholes to dismiss or destroy catholic principles as contradictory, irrational, fallacious or contrary to scientific evidence - caught sight of this sentence ?
Imagine what a Dawkins or Robert Winston would do with this nugget ?

Are we so presumptuous to conclude that 'blighted ova' which would never develop into embryos past the zygote or blastocyst stage aren't fully fledged souls in Heaven when we have no idea what's in the mind of God or His providential will ?
We must always err on the side of caution [as Ms Watts wondrously concludes elsewhere] ; and maintain that prime moral principle of Human Life from conception as a categorical imperative ; we dare not consider anything else without the potential of contravening God's will.

Do you now see what I'm saying ?
I'm not talking about the ethics of an issue ; I'm talking about how to argue from our Ethical standpoint; not inadvertently ,as Chesterton puts it, 'thinking backwards'.
The late, great Fr Robert Noonan [OFM [cap]] declared that regarding catholic morality - "lest ye become like little children" is the most crucial of scriptural considerations.
Sure we must be as cunning as serpents and exercise the graces of our intellect and wisdom to their fullest extent ; but the principles intrinsically bear an innocence ,and adamantine simplicity of Truth [devoid of gnostic mystagoguery and obfuscatory complexity] Truth - the Person of Christ.

Human Life is Sacred - a gift from God.
Human Lovemaking is a gift from God in which we share in God's life and love [it invokes inseparable unitive and procreative aspects].
Human life begins at conception.

Three principles : with due concern to Original Sin tell me a single ethical argument pertaining to life and sexuality to which these cannot be applied; and in doing so manifest the totality of the catholic position.
Simple in context: Profound beyond our human consideration in discernment and deliberation - Divine Mystery.
Apply these fundamental principles and we have the promises of Christ given to Holy Mother Church that we cannot err.

When we attempt to argue outside this remit in any other way using any other grounds we are prone to failure ; and have our own arguments turned against us.

{Of course this led to arguments that I automatically alienate atheist pro-lifers by including God in the Catholic Fundamental Moral theological principles for Life and Human Sexuality}

You misunderstand the point of first principles.
You presume they must be the lowest common denominator, the most watered-down which the greater amount can agree upon.
You expect us to remove God from the equation ; this would axiomatically introduce a hidden agenda on our part; and a diminution of the principle; others may agree with the inviolability of human life from conception to grave [or somehwere in-between] ; but their reasoning could be grounded on all manner of reasons and beliefs which may either have a remote affinity or a contrariety with our position.
Natural law is a consequence and support for our theodicy ; not a criterion for it.

{he claimed he didn't misunderstand ; and that it was quite obvious I was on a hiding to nothing and participating in a 'dialogue of the deaf' by making God a mandatory element [I didn't] for a pro-Life position }

But you are misunderstanding !
...and to be frank , you're also being quite specious: Why should extra principles alienate and exclude those with similar sentiments and principles who have no theistic grounds for them ? My enemy's enemy dude.
You also refuse to acknowledge what I said in regard to first principles : excision from them does not make them simpler [e.g. 'even if there were no God our existential authentic human identity includes respect for every living individual; refusing to use them as a means to an end and considering their life inviolable'] - reductionism is not retrogressive re-grounding or simplification - that's known as Ockham's fallacy.
Your 'solely' misunderstands the holistic dissemination nature of intrinsic consequential predication - the A-B-C synthesis may preclude A-B for some; but not necessarily B-C ; or even the A--C for others.

{Of course it didn't do any good - there are those among us who think having God in the equation axiomatically invalidates the integrity or congruency of the argument. Consequently in order for them to 'get on board' we have to throw out our underlying principles . All too sad.}

Maybe a pertinent re-post. #1

2011-02-08T15:02:00.003Z

{Never knowing when to shut up, I jump headfirst into a little discussion amongst a few smug mutual back-patters on the Holy Smoke blog regarding the varying considerations of the child in the womb - the usual 'it's a blob for the first few months; and can be treated accordingly' bilge. There was also a snide aside regarding our 'gnosticism' regarding when ensoulment occurs. Unable to sleep [overtired - long story] : I started to type.}

I wish you'd stop presuming what Catholics believe - we have absolutely no idea what a soul is except that it exists - we have no idea if there is a process called ensoulment at all [i.e. whether it is intrinsic to the material form by its being held in being by the Holy Spirit or if it is an external interaction] - we are fully aware of the dogmatic position that we are ultimately a holism of an embodied soul - but beyond this we are dealing with mystery - yet we don't have to know in order to believe in its essential validity - the 'what' and 'how' we leave to Divine Mystery. I could still push you down the stairs without knowing Newton's laws of motion, I could slap you without knowing anything about quantum theory, electrostatics or neurons.

Ok here's my question :
Let's remove the whole 'human life in potential' argument from the equation and ask :

When in human development is it concretely valid to determine and classify the embryo/foetus as 'not a person' ?

Well you've probably all seen intra-uterine photos of 12 week old foetuses who look almost identical to sleeping infants - so I don't suppose any of you will use 'looking human' as a determinant;

what about intelligence ?
we already use that criterion to switch off the severely brain-damaged's ventilators ; and if the vital organs function we'll dehydrate them and starve them [it's a mercy isn't it ? nobody would wish to live like that would they ? anyway it's all perfectly legal since Jamie Bland] The same goes with abortion of the brain-damged foetus [a blessing - beter off not to be born and suffer]
yes, Intelligence seems an adequate determinant for 'personhood'.

well you might not like to know when we are at our most intelligent - the time when a human has the highest amount of active and interactive neurons and is at its optimum learning capacity with the highest IQ it will ever accrue - is seven months after conception !
You may be aware that before 22 weeks a foetus's brain has yet to develop folds in order to increase its mental capacity - what you may not be aware of is that even at this stage the foetus has the intelligence and learning ability of a seven year old child ! regress further week by week and you'll discover that a significant amount of foetal abortions happen to human beings of an intelligence quotient equivalent to ourselves and greater than any adult primate or cetacean [for whom we have so much sympathy] could ever achieve! we need to travel many many weeks further back to arrive at an 'insignificant' level of even human intelligence, let alone the animals we treat with 'human-like' sensibilities.

Do any of you remember that bitterly ironic day when the Liberal democrat party voted for the motion proposing abortion on demand and subsequently voted for the banning of the use of goldfish as fairground prizes on the grounds of cruelty ? who says evolution and civilization isn't a wonderful thing ?

Ok what about walking away from the brain thing and see what the biologists and geneticists say. How about working out the life-cycle of the human being and discerning how brief this embryonic development is in the totality of human development ? nine months versus three score years and ten - surely this will prove something.
Well ! If you remove the temporal length of stages one discovers that our life is more redolent of a mayfly than we'd believe. Out of the 41 stages in the human cell-life cycle we undergo 37 of them in the womb. If one accepts that past half-way is nearer the whole , technically the embryo is long past middle aged before its mother knows she's pregnant !

what about the foetus/embryo feeling pain ?
it's illegal to inflict pain on sentient animals; I kick a cat and I could end up in prison - some think it's barbaric to kill a spider and not humanely dispose of it in some other way.

Well the developing neural cortex attaches to the developing brain stem at 17 days after conception - the embryo certainly feels pain from that point - but is it aware of it ?

Maybe we should move onto sentience ?
there must be a time during human development where there is no self-awareness whatsoever - maybe embryology will give us an answer - then the abortion debate may become clearer - even if the embryo is undergoing a painful death surely not being aware of it or actually 'experiencing it' with self-awareness, cognition, memory etc might make it tenable to consider this as the killing of a non-person ?

Surely sentience and higher brain function, the ability to express oneself, portray emotion ,dream etc can't happen until well into pregnancy , maybe the last few weeks ? or even the last few months ? possibly it begins around or before the abortion limit of 24 weeks ? maybe slightly before but surely not earlier than say 18-20 weeks ?

Ooops !
it's impossible to determine when it actuates, but the mechanism for its functions cannot preclude its absolute absence; so we must be willing to face the possibility that it occurs at the beginning of the organ's development - when it goes online as it were:

Well guess what !
during the fourth week of development after conception the heart starts beating, blood starts to flow around the body to and from the yolk sac, buds start to turn into hands, the eyes are developing lenses....and
the brain divides into five separate vesicles : one of these is the telencephalon !
what's that ?
only the beginnings of the cerebral cortex [controlling memory, attention, perceptual awareness, thought, language, and consciousness]
and the basal ganglia [controlling motor control, cognition, emotions, and learning].

In other words it is impossible to determine if any of these functions have not commenced by this developmental stage. No matter how ill-formed or 'embryonic' - it is still present and potentially as active as every other aspect of the embryo.
Yes, less than a month !

and it gets even worse for the pro-choicer

In order for the brain vesicles and especially the telencephalon to form and function it requires morphological and molecular transient 'segments' known as neuromeres.

These neuromeres are already functioning in order to combine and differentiate and form a co-ordinate system.

These neuromeres - the spark of our whole psyche, awareness , intelligence, will - all that makes us a 'person'....

[wait for it]

...begin to develop on the 18th day after conception.

What am I saying ?
am I daring to make the ludicrous, preposterous suggestion that this lump of cells is self-aware, sentient and capable of the minutest form of cognitive function with a direct purpose and even a determined will towards actuating an end other than a simple form of chemical processes genetically engineered by its DNA ?

Well guess what ?
I'm going further and beyond this !

What's all this massive fascination with stem cells ?
why are they the new miracle on the block ?
why are they almost treated like some magical elixir that can solve all the world's medical ills ?

it's not so much what they do ; it's what they are !
they function beyond what we would seem credible to our common sense - to the point that we may feel compelled to call them miraculous or magical !

Go back a week or so and cut the cells which would form the embryo's head off above the forming notochord - well that which is destined to ultimately become a head - and flush it down the sluice !
then take the bunch of cells which are already developing into a proto-form of the lower body and place it where the head should have been.

what happens ?
a head develops - fully functioning brain etc - full kit and kaboodle.
In other words there's a self-directing entelechy within the organism itself external to the genetic code [whether it's controlled by nucleic acid concentrations pre-determined by the genetic code makes little difference - the self-directing motivation is now inherant within the organism]

this entelechy aims itself towards self-preservation and development to the point of self-repair and redirecting itself [changing legs into a head to replace a lost one - love to see Paul Daniels try that one!]

even if it's all basic biochemistry we're talking about an entity which from the very start is not developing into something which will eventually develop self-preserving , self-regulating and self-directing attributes - it already possesses them to the extent that within the first few weeks it's not the amorphous blob as insignificant as an amoeba , nor is it something many months away from brain function, self-awareness, cognition, emotion ; rather once it enters the foetal stage it's barely a month away from smiling, dreaming, mnetically reacting differently to varying sounds and sucking its thumb - all within twelve weeks - half the abortion limit !
Is it a person at twelve weeks ?
when wasn't it before this ?
want me to go through it all again ?
we simply cannot tell !!!!

there's no embryologist who can irrefutably claim that thought [no matter how primitive or merely motor-regulating] does not possibly commence as early as the 18th day after conception when those microscopic neuromeres emerge - and who knows what processes led to this and when they began ?

we're never dealing with a mere blob...

All this available information - and it doesn't alter catholic principles one iota; because we have fundamental moral principles that Life [however potential and requiring all manner of necessary things to become all it is designed to be] commences at conception ; because from that moment we can never know what wonders may be wrought within the womb and beyond in that entity's regard.

Child breaks through security and greets Pope at the Vatican - Day neither will forget [one big tear...]

2011-02-02T13:40:00.000Z

SPONGEBOBARU!!! How the Japanese MUST be doing something right if their kids can be so filled with wonder!!

2011-02-02T11:52:00.000Z

Save Cardinal Vaughan Candlelit Vigil Tonight 6p.m.

2011-02-02T11:50:00.002Z

Update #1: Story hit Lunchtime news BBC London news on Cardinal Vaughan School + Michael Gormally

Update # 2: Diocese responds with a "Know thy Place & be Thankful"
Bullying demeanour - ignoring all the issues.
Westminster only compounds its deplorable actions

Update #3

Damian Thompson re-Blogs on the increasingly embarrassing situation

PLEASE GO IF YOU'RE ABLE!!!

Message from Campaign representative Dominic Brennan:

Dear All,

The Candlelit Vigil to protest (peacefully) against what the diocese are doing to our school takes place tonight. Please come in your numbers and bring friends and family so we can display an overwhelming resolve and get the message across that we're not going to take our school being metaphorically bulldozed lying down.

I'll see you all at 6pm

Best wishes

Dominic

Now you'd have to have been camping on Alpha Centauri not to know what's happening to one of the best Catholic comprehensives in the Country.
Cristina Odone & Damian Thompson have both blogged on the scandal .

Former Headmaster Michael Gormally [who if you remember - at his leaving mass was treated to a 'wonderfully awkward' Homily by Archbishop Nichols - an address to the faithful on their responsibility to their Bishop - which boiled down to something redolent of the Daleks "You will obey!!!"] has written to parents [click to enlarge] I will also include Mr Gormally's letter to Archbishop Nichols,but all transcripts detailing the fiasco are available here

Liverpool's Confirmation policy & Fr Ray on Frequent Communion

2011-02-02T10:58:00.000Z

Archbishop Kelly has spent decades arguing for early reception of Confirmation - He did it in Salford and now looks like he's universally got his own way in Liverpool [and in the process abrogated his Apostolic mandate and responsibility of guaranteeing he is the Sacrament's minister - but tell me what Bishop in this country hasn't these days?]

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2011/01/26/archbishop-puts-confirmation-before-communion/

and the Catholic Herald asks 'Is it right' ?

Why do this?

I have absolutely no idea - every argument seems contrary to reason itself - just because traditional praxis was one way and taken from a distinctive theological perspective - a Child's journey into the fulness of the Church does not in any way have to correspond with an Adult Catechumens initiation - Pius X was right - there is nothing which should preclude a child from receiving the Blessed sacrament once they are aware of what it is.
But ++Kelly's backwards thinking [and it truly is an enforcement of a paradigm - like forcing a square peg into a round hole - just so it conforms to the homogeneity of 'adults and children must go through the same process'] leaves us bereft of so much tradition and the Catholic socio-cultural sacralising of a child's initiation into adulthood.
It's like pulling down the eiffel tower to make an eiffel tower visitor's centre!

Now Fr Ray Blake [my hero!] comments on this here ; but adds further comments on the issue of Frequent Communion

It's a good read - but I think he's very, very wrong ; and is an inadvertent reluctant victim of being educated in an age of revisionism regarding reception of the Blessed Sacrament throughout Church History. I may be mistaken but I'm still astounded at the amount of damage caused from the inundation of urban myths invented by modernists and opportunistic reprobates in the sixties and seventies to justify their deplorable activities and positions. Chaos ensued and the faithful were misled. God forgive them.

So I'll re-post here what I wrote there: Please feel free to disagree!

I don't understand this argument:

The so-called 'rupture' argument is specious.
It's backwards thinking.

Pius X was childlike - and possessed the truthful simplicity inherent within it - so it was only natural for him to address the issue on a fundamental objective level.

Holy Communion is precluded solely to those in a state of mortal sin, of ongoing scandal or of ignorance - those unworthy to approach the altar and those unable to sincerely utter the 'Amen' - so axiomatically there is NOTHING to prevent a Child's reception of communion once they are aware of what it truly is!

Yes canonically and ecclesiastically Confirmation is an initiation of those who have achieved the age of discretion - but in a western world which has introduced socio-cultural extension of childhood into a phenomena two to three times the length of its 'traditional' period

[think of the local student protests where 'children' in their twenties were dropped off by their parents with packed lunches, bottles of water and when the police kettled them the parents flooded the police switchboards with reprimands and demanding to know when their children will be home? Before the second world war 14 yr old boys were working men] ;

The age of discretion and accountability are now no longer congruent with the age of responsibility and independence - it is unjust and unworthy of us to initiate those who are not truly able to acknowledge, affirm and dedicate their lives to their baptismal duties and responsibilities.

The 'soldier of Christ' perspective may be a late arrival - but it accentuates the very nature of entering freely and responsibly into the Pentecostal Mystery and mission. ++Kelly's 'appeal to tradition and theology' falls at this point.

The repeated practice itself has complemented, supplemented and vindicated the overflowing graces and living symbolism and accentuated witness - what might not necessarily have possessed that which was a compounded initiation rite has now taken up that mantle by Catholic praxis - and nothing which is resultantly good, pure and true should ever be restricted

- We MUST agree with Aquinas that where the Holy Spirit exercises grace is His Domain - and the exigents and accidentals which enter History are parts of divine providence - we are guided, moulded by it; and we are forbidden from countering it if it neither acts contrarily or limits fulfilment to its ultimate end.

When a Spiritual initiation rite coalesces with the socio-cultural initiation into adulthood [inadvertently accentuating the classical communal initiation - the Judaic Barmitzvah, the Roman manly gown, the Greek mentoring, the hindu 'second birth' etc]
and thus the inherent dignity, symbolism and beauty of it becomes accentuated on so many levels ?

It becomes not merely commendable - but a gracious 'accident' - Christianity has a tradition of sacralising the pagan and the limited grasps towards the eternal; why should it not involve itself within that which invites it in?
A traditional rite of initiation becoming sacralised by being superseded and transformed into pentecostal initiation.

We liked it
We did it!!!
It was good.
So why change it for no other reason than...well?
What exactly is their reasoning?
Qui Bonum?

..and why enforce an accountability and responsibility upon a child [something the sacramental grace demands] - and extracting an adult response from them - merely because they have arrived at the age of discretion ?

If it does not benefit - it should not be changed - and vice-versa.
That's what St Pius X understood!

Fr Ray - I'm afraid you're going to have to forgive me but I'm going to challenge your education on the issue of frequent Lay reception of Communion throughout the history of the Church . I too endured the historicism and revisionism in both seminary and in three universities that it was practically non-existent until 1906 [it's one of the modern liturgist's/professional laity/modernist academic's equivocations to justify the abolition of exposition of and devotion to the Blessed Sacrament]

It's not true!
For the 1st Thousand years of the Church Holy Communion was received frequently.
Only in the medieval and post-jansenist eras was it limited.
My battered copy of the 1608 Introduction to the Devout Life has St Francis de Sales constantly recommending daily communion.
Don't believe the revisionism that 'it was never thus' - It almost always was! And even when it wasn't the saints and doctors of the Church still recommended it.

New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia : On Frequent Communion throughout the ages

Weapons of MASS Destruction pt 2

2011-01-29T20:07:00.000Z

Weapons of MASS Destruction pt 1

2011-01-29T20:06:00.000Z

A March for Life in the UK ? Sure ! But we need an authentic 'Catholic Church for Life' first....

2011-01-27T16:17:00.002Z

The Catholic Herald has proposed we start a British version of the US March for Life

http://www.marchforlife.org/

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2011/01/26/let%E2%80%99s-take-courage-and-hold-a-march-for-life-in-britain/

A brilliant idea !

Something we should have been doing for decades

But alas it brings with it some home truths we MUST address:

{I'll post here what I commented on the Catholic Herald site - because I doubt it will last very long on there - I don't exactly blame the Herald - understanding they have a very narrow tightrope upon which to walk - but the distateful, awkward and uncomfortable does need to be said on occasion - and it's rather sad that it doesn't say it more...}

March for Life ?
Well ? How do you define 'for life' or 'Pro-Life' ?

In the US it's simple: it's a march against Roe vs Wade and all the other exigents trail along behind - embryonic experimentation, partial-birth abortions, the Terry Schiavo case etc - and the population [mainly religious] will declare that they're pro-Life - but usually this means they aren't really pro-Life - they're merely anti certain forms of the taking of human life. Take a look at many pro-Life websites and you'll discover that even when they're anti abortion-on-demand many advocate abortion in the case of rape or incest or a handicapped foetus or one infected with hiv or a drug-addiction or even one born to a drug addict/special needs mother...

How many of the vehemently professing pro-Life US citizens have no reservations in advocating Capital punishment and illegal unjust wars of aggression ?

But all this can be swept aside and they gather as one for a March for Life - and all credit to them!
ANYTHING which counters this culture of Death is to be jumped at...

But in this country ?
Things are a little more complicated...

Yes I can see the major pro-Life groups overcoming their differences - I can see a wide oecumenical force of evangelical Christians, Catholics, Muslims etc gathering together under the umbrella of being 'pro-Life' - even if what they mean by it has very different definitions and exemptions...

But as Catholics ?
We have a few hurdles:

a] The severe rupture in Catholic pro-Life activism - the 1998 debacle has never been resolved - and the pig-headed leaders on both sides are unforgiving and resolutely unwilling to accommodate each other - to the extent that by their antipathy they continue to breed dissent - thus those involved become partisan - and their young indoctrinated acolytes on both sides are following suit - bearing the grudges onto a second generation.
To the extent that some major pro-Life bloggers/commentators/advocates refuse to even acknowledge the existence or the activities of the other side unless they really have to....
It's scandalous - shameful - disgusting !
I don't care who's to blame - or who did what - or who disappointed whom or betrayed whom or acted shamefully...
At present - the fact that Right to Life and the SPUC are not a combined force utilising all talents and capabilities is an unmitigated SCANDAL upon us all.

To those who are involved : The price is too high to not get it sorted - NOW!

b] So-Called Pro-Life Politicians [including Catholic MPs]
need a list?

http://catholicactionuk.blogsp...

They're supposed to be Leading the political fight for the Pro-Life cause - but their version of Pro-Life is on occasion highly divergent from authentic Catholic teaching - and I'm sorry but it is the Apostolic duty of these people's Bishops to direct them to not cause public scandal by advocating anti-Catholic positions in a public forum.

Now yes - we do appreciate and value ANY support [however limited] to the Pro-Life cause - But we can't continue in this abject denial of reality that what is considered to be a politically pro-Life approach is definitely NOT the Catholic position. It's ridiculous for Nadine Dorries to publicly denounce the catholic hierarchy for their ineffectualness when her version of pro-Life is directly contrary to Catholic teaching at the most basic level...

c] The Bishops' Conference of England & Wales - irrespective of what it claims and teaches - is NOT PRO-LIFE!!!
It's a terrible accusation to make - one that fills me with shame, anger and sorrow : But it cannot be denied.

i] The CESEW has agreed with the Connexions programme to allow it access into every Catholic Secondary School - this involves sexual advice/counselling to the underage, the provision of contraceptives and referrals for abortions and the provision of abortifacients. Conference is fully aware of this - and at present that which knowingly involves the murder of the unborn is a stated policy position. Given that the CES also helped draft the last government's proposed health and sexual education bill , and appointed Greg Pope as deputy?
http://spuc-director.blogspot....
Conference has made it pretty clear that it cares very little for defending either the sexual safety, security and health of Catholic teenagers or the life of the Unborn.

ii] Conference has signed off on the Liverpool Care pathway [June 24 2010] which considers Clinical Nutrition and Hydration as medical treatment which can validly be removed - This can only be described - irrespective of the florid sentimental comments of those advocating this [e.g Fr James Mulligan in the Herald] - as euthanasia by starvation and dehydration.

http://www.catholicchurch.org....

Which directly contravenes CDF directive on the mandatory retention of all forms of normal care due to a dying patient:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_cu...

iii] Conference's Department for Christian Responsbility and Citizenship formed the CEDAR initiative against domestic violence - a worthwhile cause one must admit until one sees the links and formal co-operation with specific pro-Euthanasia and pro-Abortion organisations.
http://spuc-director.blogspot....
l
iv] The Intervention of Conference's 'Ethics Spokesperson' - Chairman of the Christian Responsibility and Citizenship group - Archbishop Peter Smith in parliamentary bills dealing with major life issues such as the Mental Capacity Act and the HFE Bill - Archbishop Smith might feel proud of himself [as he stated in his interview in the Herald with Anna Arco] - but Catholics should be outraged!

http://spuc-director.blogspot....
http://spuc-director.blogspot....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_...
Mental Capacity Act http://www.spuc.org.uk/ethics/...
http://spuc-director.blogspot....

[clarification by Prof Finnis over specific wording which inadvertently indicts Archbishop Smith even further] http://spuc-director.blogspot....

Now I'm sorry - But Conference truly needs to clean up its act - and please note I didn't even refer to all the dodgy environmentalist documentation advocating sustainablity [i.e. population control] - the links with CAFOD's far-from-Catholic positions on certain issues etc...but we can't ignore the fact that Conference has conspired and is conspiring with the Culture of Death.

I care less about a March for Life - and more for a Catholic Church in England and Wales that is incontrovertibly for Life!!!
Which is something at present to which none of us can attest.

Götterdämmerung (19/19) - Wagner, "Ring" Akt III - Finale Erlösungsmotiv...

2011-01-26T12:20:00.000Z

Double-wow!!!

Siegfried 12/19 - R. Wagner, "Ring" - Akt III Prelude, Vorspiel - Valenc...

2011-01-26T11:49:00.000Z

WOW!!!

Pope: mission work 'involves everyone, everything, always'

2011-01-26T09:43:00.000Z

The work of evangelization “involves everyone, everything, always,” Pope Benedict XVI says in his message for the 85th World Mission Sunday.

The Pope underlines that the Church “is missionary by her very nature,” and the work of spreading the Gospel is a “joint responsibility of all.”

World Mission Sunday will be observed this year on October 23. But the papal message was released by the Vatican on January 25.

Stressing the urgent importance of evangelism, the Pope writes: “We cannot rest easy at the thought that, after two thousand, there are people who still do not know Christ, who have not yet heard His message of salvation.” Moreover, he continues, it is disturbing that many people, “having received the Gospel announcement, have forgotten or abandoned it and no longer identify themselves in the Church; and many environments, even in traditionally Christian societies, are reluctant to open themselves to the word of faith.”

All Christians should feel the pressing need for mission work, the Pope said. He observed that the work of evangelization should include careful attention to the human needs of one’s neighbors, and thus mission work cannot “overlook questions associated with human development, justice, and liberation from all forms of oppression.”

30 Seconds To Mars - Closer To The Edge

2011-01-26T09:20:00.000Z

Chapterhouse Precious One

2011-01-20T20:41:00.000Z

Primer 2004 [Shane Carruth] [press fullscreen tab to watch]

2011-01-20T20:06:00.000Z

Making Things Right!

2011-01-20T19:39:00.000Z

Canon law & The Permanent Diaconate : The Problem that simply won't go away...Sex!

2011-01-19T17:15:00.006Z

When Canon Law was being revised for the ultimate 1983 Code , His Holiness John Paul II was given a draft regarding Married Permanent Deacons:

It began as:
Canon 135, §2 of the Schema de populo Dei read as follows:

"Men of mature age, promoted to the stable diaconate, who are living in marriage, are not bound to the prescription of §1; these, however, upon the loss of their wife, are bound to celibacy.

Then it even dropped the rule for celibacy and no re-marriage after becoming a widower

"Men promoted to the permanent diaconate, living in marriage, are not
bound to the prescription of §1."

Nevertheless by the time of the final draft this provision for an exemption to clerical continence [i.e. exemption from permanent abstinence] for Married Deacons - was removed !

The Law states:
1983 CIC 277.
§ 1. Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and therefore are bound to celibacy which is a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can adhere more easily to Christ with an undivided heart and are able to dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and humanity.

§ 2. Clerics are to behave with due prudence towards persons whose company can endanger their obligation to observe continence or give rise to scandal among the faithful.

§ 3. The diocesan bishop is competent to establish more specific norms concerning this matter and to pass judgment in particular cases concerning the observance of this obligation.

Now this law makes it quite clear that in line with Church tradition, the provisions of the unchallenged 1917 Code and the reintroduction of Permanent Deacons [actuated by Pius XII for ex-Lutherans and continued by Paul VI's legislation]
that the rule for 'continence' remains.

Married men with consenting wives who wish to become Permanent deacons - upon ordination must refrain from sexual activity.

But - as we all know - this is NOT what's happening in the Western Church.

Worse in the 1998 Vatican directive on the permanent Diaconate , Cardinal Laghi appears to be under the misapprehension that married Deacons are indeed allowed to continue having sex.

He speaks of

[61]"a certain continence"

[why certain? it looks like he's alluding to 1Cor7 - where St Paul advises all married couples to intemittently abstain from sex for spiritual reasons - also to enhance appreciation of each other]

and worse- to
[68] 'welcoming children'

...and we can't infer His Eminence is solely referring to those children conceived before yet born after their father's ordination.

Now if Cardinal Laghi - writing on the diaconate - doesn't understand what canon 277 is saying - what hope is there for the rest of us ?

Especially when His Holiness of Blessed Memory John Paul II - in His Theology of the Body addresses - actually hijacks and alters the meaning of the word continence to fit into his pedagogical paradigm. For JPII marital continence does not mean continence!

http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2tb124.htm

Well what about the appeal to equal marital conjugal rights of canon 1135 ?
No - sorry that doesn't apply. Canon 277 applies to all clerics.

What about canon 4 which speaks of the rights which haven't been directly revoked?
Well there isn't anything to revoke - tradition and magisterial teaching and the law had remained consistent; there's no precedent to make.

Well what of the 1998 Vatican directive and the Pope's comments on the issue?

e.g. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1987/september/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19870919_diaconi-permanenti-detroit_en.html

" In particular, the deacon and his wife must be a living example of fidelity and indissolubility in Christian marriage before a world which is in dire need of such signs. By facing in a spirit of faith the challenges of married life and the demands of daily living, they strengthen the family life not only of the Church community but of the whole of society. They also show how the obligations of family, work and ministry can be harmonized in the service of the Church’s mission. Deacons and their wives and children can be a great encouragement to all others who are working to promote"

Canon 33#1 makes it quite clear - it doesn't matter what's said by anyone - even the Pontiff - in regard to the pastoral understanding of the law - even if they teach something inadvertently directly contrary to the law - it doesn't set a precedent or alter a thing.
The law - as stated - remains the law.

Now Dr James Provost attempts to clarify regarding Canon 277

277. This is the canon which imposes perfect and perpetual continence on all clerics.
No exception is made for permanent deacons, although one had been included in the earlier drafts of the canon.
Does this means that married permanent deacons as of November 27, 1983 had to cease having marital relations with their wives?
The text of the law would seem to impose this "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven".
However, through matrimony each of the spouses acquires
"equal obligations and rights to those things which pertain to the partnership of conjugal
life" (c. 1135), and sexual cooperation is part of the permanent consortium (c. 1096,
§ 1).
Since the new code does not take away acquired rights unless they are expressly
revoked by the code (c. 4), and since canon 277 does not explicitly state it is revoking
the acquired marital rights of married deacons, continence is not being imposed on them
even though the law reads that way.

Now yes - as there has been no informed consent requested from the wives of permanent deacons to disengage from conjugal activity - there is no obligation upon them ; but it doesn't mean that there is some invoked precedent which exempts permanent Deacons from the actual law itself.
Canon 4 does not apply - the law is there - it doesn't need to add any conditional that it is removing or revoking any 'privilege' - it's there - blatantly - married permanent deacons as clerics are canonically obliged to continence.

Well?
What about canon 277#3 ?

“The diocesan bishop is competent to establish more specific norms concerning this matter [i.e., the perfect and perpetual continence of clerics, per Canon 277 § 1]” and to pass judgment in particular cases concerning the observance of this obligation.”

Surely this means that the exemption from continence is within the remit of the Bishop?
er no! Fr John Boyle reminds us that:

The dispensation from the obligation to celibacy, whether of a deacon or a presbyter, is reserved to the Roman Pontiff. Can. 291: "... loss of the clerical state does not entail a dispensation from the obligation of celibacy, which only the Roman Pontiff grants."

Now Dr Edward Peters [http://canonlawblog.blogspot.com/]
[American Papist's dad!]
has written extensively on this and his 'In the Light of the law' blog is a must-read for anyone interested in this ; American Papist brought the issue to a head in the US - it's all over Twitter and Fr John Boyle has resurrected the issue on the blogosphere over here. There's been plenty opposition and dimissal.

Fr Ray Blake [in his wonderfully pastoral way which loathes the dusty, desiccated, clinical legalistic pharisaic hyper-pedantry in regard to a Code of Canon law in which the prime directive is the fulfilment of God's love, mercy and truth in the daily working of Holy Mother Church - not rigoristically rupturing people's lives] pushes it aside as a storm in a teacup and a misreading of the law. I really wish I could agree.

There's something deeply wrong here - that this situation could arise is ludicrous!

One feels compelled to ask "What the hell were the Papal canonical advisers playing at?"

http://www.canonlaw.info/a_deacons.htm
http://www.canonlaw.info/Studia%20c.%20277.pdf
http://caritasveritas.blogspot.com/2011/01/deacons-and-continence.html [follow the links]
http://caritasveritas.blogspot.com/2010/11/permanent-deacons-are-obliged-obliged.html
http://marymagdalen.blogspot.com/2011/01/clergy-and-sex.html
http://frvanhove.wordpress.com/2008/11/19/responses-by-edward-n-peters-to-deacon-rex-pilger-on-diaconal-continence-canon-277/

But the whole Issue has now taken a nasty turn - and who is there ?
Yet again - AMERICA MAGAZINE !!

John W Martens doesn't exactly understand what Canon Law is - let alone what it says - and introduces all manner of obfuscations, dismissals, sneerings, fallacious appeals to praxis and authority, accusations that Dr Peters is reacting for all manner of ulterior motives, that his position is invalidated because he doesn't justify his position from biblical sources [I kid you not!!!???] and every other trick in the book .
He even makes the revisionist attempt to redefine the meaning of the word continence into something directly contrary to its canonical meaning.

http://americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=1&entry_id=3802

Ed Peters easily trounces John W Martens's hatchet-job
http://canonlawblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/debating-complex-points-of-law-is-hard.html

...but this is beside the point - it's bad enough we have the reprobate Austen Ivereigh pontificating his 'new secularism/pastoral condoms/democratic debate is an enemy of democracy/anti-Catholic Taliban' hackeries in America - this is a ridiculous scenario. Martens is no canon lawyer - so argues using every other reason except the canon itself.
Did 'America"'s editorial team think it was effective and productive to have a non-Canonist sneeringly dismiss Ed Peters's sincere appeal that a Canonical/Praxis anomaly should be addressed?

Oh wait - they let Ivereigh comment on all things Catholic don't they? Silly me...

Now canon 277 needs to be addressed :

It states clearly and categorically that Married permanent deacons cannot continue to have sex - and consequently before ordination their wives had to sign up to this.

This hasn't happened - and in 2013 the thirty year rule of continual practise comes into effect - an appeal can be made to Rome that as it's been an ongoing custom and habit for ordained married deacons to continue having sexual relations in contravention of the law itself - an answer must be given in its regard - and Rome will have egg all over its face with either an embarrassing backdown - causing outrage - or an implementation of the actual law - causing even more outrage!

This can't be dismissed - Rome must act!

CES : Don't you DARE take credit when it most certainly isn't due....

2011-01-14T00:36:00.000Z

It's what we guessed all along : Catholic Schools are fantastic at everything - except in being Catholic.

From the menacing caverns of the Ice Queen we're provided with the latest information:

New publications demonstrate that Catholic schools are rated consistently better than other schools

The Catholic Education Service for England and Wales (CESEW) launched two new publications, Value Added: the Distinctive Contribution of Catholic Schools and Colleges in England and the CESEW Digest of 2009 Census Data for Schools and Colleges on Monday 10 January 2011.

Data from Value Added demonstrates that, according to Ofsted inspections, Catholic schools rated consistently better than average on all criteria. In terms of overall effectiveness, Ofsted judged 73% of Catholic secondary schools to be outstanding or good, compared to 60% of schools nationally. For primary schools, 74% of Catholic schools were judged outstanding or good compared to 66% nationally.

The Census Digest shows that these results are achieved with intakes of Catholic schools that are socially diverse. The data shows that Catholic schools have similar proportions of children eligible for free school meals as schools nationally have, and are more ethnically mixed than schools nationally.

Bishop Malcolm McMahon OP, Chairman of CESEW, said “These two publications make it very clear that Catholic education continues to make a very important contribution to the future of our society. Furthermore they show just how well taxpayers' money is spent when it is channelled into Catholic schools.”

Oona Stannard, Chief Executive and Director of CESEW, added, “These publications demonstrate that our high standards are not a flash in the pan but carefully sustained and nurtured over time. I am particularly pleased to note that our achievements are also matched by conspicuously high scores for personal development, including enjoyment of school. To have such happy and successful outcomes doesn’t just benefit the pupils- nearly 30% of whom are not Catholic - but also shows the Church making an investment in the future well being of society through Catholic schools.”

"Our achievements" eh Oona darling?

Exactly how many Catholic schools have closed this year?
How many Primary schools have but a handful applying for their reception class; forcing Head Teachers to alter their admissions policies to allow anyone of any faith or none through the doors ?
Wasn't it only a few weeks ago that Sacred Heart school in Blackburn - which was 90% Catholic only ten years ago - ceased to be a Catholic school and instead was handed over to the local mosque after its pupil ratio became 96% Muslim ?
Did the local Catholic community simply vanish?

What's the lapsation rate for Students in Catholic secondary schools Ms Stannard? Ninety er what percent?

When you helped compose the Sexual education government proposals - which would have forced Catholic schools to teach "impartial & objective" [euphemisms if ever there were] lessons on contraception, abortion, extramarital and gay sex - did you give any due concern for this being utterly contrary to your executive remit as head of the CES ; and your baptismal vows as a Catholic ?

..and finally ma'am - Connexions !

Contraception provision , prescribing of the morning-after pill, abortion referrals, conspiracy with the sexual abuse of minors via sex and relationship advice and counselling for those under 16 - and giving them the contraception to act out what they're taught ?
All within the safe confines of a Catholic school - with the bitter irony that the school nurse has to ring a parent or guardian for permission to give a student an aspirin!!!

Don't you ever think we don't know what's happened to our Catholic schools throughout the land.
Don't think we don't know how your direct policies have disenfranchised and alienated Catholic children from their faith, their traditions, their heritage...

You want an award for all your hard work ?
Don't worry ma'am - I'm sure all we Catholic parents will have a whip round to give you just what you deserve....

On an unrelated topic : Anyone know where we can buy a millstone?

Fr Ray & Laurence England have a lot more to say...

http://marymagdalen.blogspot.com/2011/01/excellence-of-catholic-schools.html

http://thatthebonesyouhavecrushedmaythrill.blogspot.com/2011/01/catholic-schools-excel-in-all-things.html

Don't ask us to speak out - we're too scared....

2011-01-14T00:12:00.000Z

From CatholicCulture.org

British Embassy reflects on Pope Benedict's speech to diplomats

During his speech to the Diplomatic Corps on Monday, Pope Benedict spoke about religious freedom, and lamented the violence against Christians in many Muslim countries. He appealed to both political authorities and religious authorities to let their fellow-citizens live in security.

“He was trying to look at the world through the prism of religious freedom, and protecting religious freedom as a fundamental human right,” said Justin Bedford, the Deputy Head of Mission at the British Embassy to the Holy See.

The Pope’s words came just days after attacks on Christians in Iraq, Egypt, and Nigeria.

“We see increasingly, where we see [Islamic] extremists are gaining a foothold, attempts to divide those societies through attacks against the Christian minorities in those countries,” he told Vatican Radio.

Mr. Bedford urged caution when asked about requests for the European Union to be more directly involved in the protection of Christians in the Middle East.

“We need to be very careful as to how the West, and the EU as part of the ‘western construct’, approaches the question of religions,” he said.

He added there Is a danger in presenting Christianity as too closely associated with the West.

“That could, if the West took the concept of Christianity under its umbrella, provide a reason for extremists to continue to divide those societies…we would seek to avoid that, if possible,” he said. “If this question is discussed in the EU we would need to find an approach which did not divide societies, but sought to unite them and present solidarity between Christians and Muslims as they confront extremists.”

British diplomat urges caution in EU defense of persecuted Christians

January 13, 2011

Justin Bedford, the deputy head of mission at the British Embassy to the Holy See, told Vatican Radio that the European Union needs to be cautious in defending the rights of persecuted Christians in Muslim societies.
“We see increasingly, where we see [Islamic] extremists are gaining a foothold, attempts to divide those societies through attacks against the Christian minorities in those countries,” he said.
In response to such extremism, “we need to be very careful as to how the West, and the EU as part of the ‘Western construct,’ approaches the question of religions,” Bedford stated.
“If the West took the concept of Christianity under its umbrella,” said Bedford, extremists could be given another reason “to continue to divide those societies … we would seek to avoid that, if possible,” he said. “If this question is discussed in the EU we would need to find an approach which did not divide societies, but sought to unite them and present solidarity between Christians and Muslims as they confront extremists.”

Pope and Condoms - The misunderstandings continue...[Pt 2 in a series]

2011-01-13T16:58:00.001Z

[Note : I was still refusing to comment on the issue - I was certain that everyone who thought the Pope was advocating condom-use was mistaken - that Damian had got the wrong end of the stick - and once a clarification came through the issue would soon vanish - I sincerely thought there was no need to start a fight. Damian had made a simple mistake - it was a 'least said: soonest mended' scenario - and surely the misunderstanding wasn't going to last more than 48hrs???

Nevertheless - I'll provide you here with something similar to my thoughts while reading his article for the first time - but please note - I didn't say them! It may all seem highly uncharitable - and may look like I was being deliberately hostile - but I absolutely adore this man [always will - he's a star!]- and I was so dumbstruck - then incredulous - then livid - that he should come out with this all this - I wanted to wring his bloody neck!!! But keep this is mind - even though he was wrong - he was sincerely wrong - I'm relating this to ensure you understand where I'm coming from - and to make sure any reader realises that I was equally critical of friends as well as enemies ]

Pope Benedict's extraordinary comments about condoms and HIV reflect his charity and common sense

By Damian Thompson

The Pope will surprise this critics with these remarks [wonder if the 't' from 'this' or the 's' from 'critics' is the misprint?]

The news is confirmed:[It wasn't] Pope Benedict XVI is modifying[no - he's not - that would be impossible] the Catholic Church’s absolute ban[what's that?] on the use of condoms. In doing so, however, he is not radically[he would be if he was] departing from Church teaching but, rather, helping to clear up years of disastrous confusion [er..what is this confusion - pray tell?] relating to the specific area of condoms and Aids.[Ahhh! I get you now - you're referring to YOUR misunderstanding of Church teaching]

The Pope’s comments, in an interview to be published on Tuesday, are wise, humane[if you're going where I think you're going in this argument ? I think Pope Benedict and yourself have diammetrically opposing views as to what might be considered 'humane' in this regard ] , carefully balanced [doesn't it scare you when someone uses the word 'balanced' ? It usually it means someone's trying to sneakily get away with something] – and another reminder of the 83-year-old pontiff’s ability to surprise the world by refusing to conform to the stereotype of “hardline conservative”.[By hardline conservative I think Damian's referring to those few poor deluded misguided and lethally dangerous African clerics who had erroneously declared that if you're still going to have sex if you're hiv+ you must never use the evil condom! But moving on...]

Benedict XVI is not contradicting the teaching of Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae [No - he's not - but he would be if he was saying what I think you think he's saying Damo] that the use of artificial birth control is wrong.[wrong?!! Perhaps a little bit more than that dude? decaffeinated coffee is wrong - wearing purple y-fronts is wrong - Cliff Richard trying to sing the Our Father to the tune of Auld lang syne is wrong - but wilfully denying God the opportunity to bring new human life into Creation? Let's say it's somewhat more grave than being a bit naughty]
But, on the basis of the reports published this afternoon, he is softening its application in circumstances that could not possibly have been anticipated in 1968. [Sigh! What has the hiv/AIDS issue to do with contraception?]

Contrary to media reports, it has never been entirely clear whether the Church forbids the use of condoms to stop the spread of HIV. [Now - that IS WRONG!!! Catholic teaching is absolutely clear!]

Is it a sin to use a condom where not using one would condemn one partner to the horrors of HIV infection?
[It's a sin to have sex if one is hiv+ dude - you should know that]
Statements by leading [???!] clergymen, including African archbishops [the few whack-jobs], have indicated that the Church’s answer was “yes” – but several cardinals strongly disagree. [Sigh! What about telling us what the Church teaches ? You don't really know do you dude? If you seriously think there's a major fight among Catholics over condom-use by those who are hiv+ and sexually active ? You're mistaken dude! The fight is that they shouldn't be having sex in the first place! ]

In a controversial interview en route to Africa in March 2009, the Pope appeared to sign with hardliners when he suggested that the use of condoms helped to spread Aids in the continent. [Actually he said 'reliance...aggravated the problem' - something distinctly different and more informed]
The science behind that claim is contested, to put it mildly, and the Vatican seemed shocked by the almost universally hostile response it produced. [You can't tell the world that the Emperor has no clothes: Ideologically it was impossible for the West to promote the only effective solution - abstinence! It was seen as too unreasonable - too ridiculous to contemplate - The last taboo is telling people they can't have sex whenever and however they want]

Actually, it was not certain even then that Benedict XVI had come to a fixed view on the subject [absolutely,irrefutably UNTRUE!!!] and the interview to be published on Tuesday indicates that he has been giving the matter deep thought. [In a word? Bollocks! Church teaching on the issue is easy enough for a child to understand : If you can kill by having sex - you MUST NOT have sex ; if you're defiantly going to gravely sin - you MUST mandatorily decrease the gravity of the sin - there's no 'deep thought' required !!!]

His comments to Peter Seewald reaffirm his belief that the use of condoms is not “the answer” to Aids – but he goes on to say that “in certain cases, where the intention is to reduce the risk of infection, it can nevertheless be a first step on the way to another, more humane sexuality”. [He was referring to the INTENTION 'in certain cases' - not the means of exercising that intention [i.e.condom-use] dude - unless you're saying he's wilfully contradicting himself and everything the Church has taught for millennia?]

He also says: “There may be justified individual cases, for example when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be … a first bit of responsibility, to redevelop the understanding that not everything is permitted and that one may not do everything one wishes. But it is not the proper way to deal with the horror of HIV infection.”

Arguably, the subtlety [???!!!!]of this moral judgment simultaneously pulls the rug from under the feet of certain Catholic conservatives [Does it?] (who oppose any softening of the line on condoms)
[what is this 'line on condoms? Damian - do you sincerely believe that 'conservative' Catholics are saying that anyone with hiv who is having sex must never use a condom ? It looks like you do ! Conservative Catholics are saying you must Abstain - only a few residual misguided African clerics maintain the position you seem to think the majority of conservative Catholics hold - news dude: They don'! ]
and liberals (who want Church teaching drastically changed to permit condoms within marriage).

We shall have to wait to see how the Pope expounds his views – but the common sense reading of these remarks is that he regards the use of a condom as a lesser evil than the transmission of an infection that he rightly describes as a “horror”. [Lesser evil ? Sorry dude - but you aren't getting this at all . The action - risking another's life - is already gravely evil - reduction of the risk by condom use is not 'lessening' the evil - it's simply not aggravating an already deplorable contravention of the fifth commandment. You seem to be under the impression that this is an innovative Church position to make this action 'permissible' or 'recommended' - instead of it being eternal MANDATORY Church teaching - if you're going to do something you are expressly commanded not to do - there is still the absolute obligation to not aggravate or compound one's grave sin - rather than the Church saying you should use a condom in such circumstances - it commands you MUST]

If that is Benedict’s considered opinion, then I suspect that only a small minority of the faithful will disagree with him.
The argument that it is better to infect someone with a deadly virus than to use a condom is a cruel misjudgment, [Who in the name of all sanity - apart from the odd misguided African nut-job - ever said that ?] particularly when it is backed up by pseudoscience claiming that the virus can jump through holes in the rubber.

[Yet again - Who said that ? Apart from the aforementioned rare misguided few ? Yes they've been widely reported with their exaggerated figures of condom failure - gravely irresponsible African archbishops declaring most condoms have holes etc...

....but Does Damian truly believe that the major proposed argument against the safety of condoms is microlesions ?

Does he think those who oppose condom use on safety grounds are so unscientific?

This is the author of 'Counterknowledge' - Yes ?!!!

Why should anyone expressing grave concern over condoms appeal to microlesions rather than misapplication, cross-contamination, slippage and breakage ?

When 12.9% of London gay men are hiv+ ; and 70% of them say they seroconverted while using condoms ? When the Cochrane report [2007] states that condoms are only 80% effective in the reduction of seroconversion among heterosexual couples.

Anyone who's using a condom thinking it will guarantee them safety and prophylaxis should be deeply concerned!!!]

The core of Catholic teaching on contraception – that artificial birth control interferes with God’s purpose – remains intact, as the Pope certainly intends it to. He upholds the teaching of Paul VI and John Paul II [Dude- actually it's 2000 yr old moral teaching of Christ, St Paul and the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church from its inception - and 1800yrs of Judaism before that] that sex should take place only between a married man and woman and must be free of artificial contraceptive devices.

But today’s news does raise one intriguing question. Would the Polish Pope, who consistently sounded a stern note on matters of sexuality [somebody hasn't read 'Theology of the Body' sic!], have adjusted the application of church teaching in this fashion?
[Adjusted what application ? Dude you're still not getting this are you ? and do you honestly think that Pope John Paul II thought and taught that sexually active people with hiv must never use a condom ? JPII would be outraged that any were continuing to have sex and potentially murder their partner - but just as outraged if they didn't use a condom while doing it]
It is, shall we say, hard to imagine him doing so. [No harder than imagining that you could think so many Catholics were so evil as to think that someone hiv+ using a condom was more sinful than someone not using one!]

PS: Several commenters on the thread below have accused me of misrepresenting the traditional position against condoms. So let me clarify: I’m not referring to the arguments for or against abstinence-based programmes of Aids prevention, but to crude advice given at local level to HIV positive people that essentially bans them from protecting themselves and others. [No - Sorry Damian : You can't get away with stating it's the Conservative [even previously Papal] and up-to-now pseudo-magisterial position to say 'no condoms for whatever reason at any time - even when you're violently assaulting another while infected with a deadly disease' - and then retreat to "well it's definitely the position of some in Africa" [which nobody will deny - but the majority of Conservative Catholics holding the same position????] - you've said one thing - either stand by it or retract it]
There are also plenty of unscientific claims about the ineffectiveness of condoms in preventing disease – and worse: in 2007, the Archbishop of Maputo said that western drug companies were infecting condoms with HIV. [Yes some terrible claims - shamefully lethal mendacious scandals - but I've yet to see you condemning Western health organisations and Gay men's medical advice websites that state a condom is 100% effective and it is impossible to get hiv from a correctly used condom - When the science says differently!! It's less than a year ago that it was reported in the Times that Spanish manufacturers of polyurethane condoms [the 'ultra-safe' variety - recommended for gay men and sexually active hiv+] were being produced with an acceptable safety limit of 95.5% !!!! A safety limit three times lower than for ordinary condoms ! Yes dude - we're perfectly willing to concede that a few African prelates have lied about condoms being unsafe - but what about the systemic Western misrepresentation [i.e. lie!] that condoms are absolutely safe! Play fair dude!]

Well? I didn't say anything on this thread - I tried to keep well away from the whole thing - It was certain it was all going to be resolved almost immediately. I was wrong!

Comment on Damian Thompson's blog by Joseph Yarbrough

@HolySmoke, it sounds to me as though you never understood the argument behind the Pope's statement on the way to Africa.

There's nothing pseudo-science about it: the use of condoms (and we're talking simple truths here) will increase promiscuity and lead, over time, to a greater number of new infections.

This is borne out by the reality in the field: where have condoms been successful in reversing AIDS? Abstinence, however, has worked.

The Pope was entirely right in what he said on his way to Africa: condoms are not a long-term solution to the problem, but they'll actually make things worse, as their availability will make sex "cheaper" and so more readily indulged in.

And where do you get this nonsense about the virus jumping through the rubber?? What fool has ever said that?

The fact is that all contraceptives have a certain failure rate, and condoms among the highest. Used properly, of course they'll stop the disease; but there are lots of ways they can fail, and the substantive issue is what their availability and promotion does to promiscuous sex across population over time, not in a given instance of successful condom use.

But about this "change" in Church teaching; the Pope is gonna change Church teaching in an interview with Seewald?

I'm skeptical. It seems more reasonable to say that the issue was never defined - has it been?

No rulings from the CDF on this in response to dubia from bishops?

Certainly, there really could be something interesting here: the issue is whether an infected spouse is required to abstain from intercourse or can use a condom to engage in "safe" sex with his spouse. For further reading.

Comment on Damian Thompson's blog by someone with the pseudonym "Starr"

Damian,
I am going to be a little presumptious here.

While I understand your issue with African bishops I nevertheless don't think you can make the case that the Pope's comments indicate they should say it is better to use a condom then infect someone or whatever it is you would prefer them to say. Reading your posts and your comments here, I get the sense that you are running away a bit off course, and possibly creating a misconception.

For a start, have you read the book? Can you tell us the entire context of this extract?

Is it perhaps of any relevance that the example which he addressed here was of a male prostitute? Is that likely to be someone engaging in homosexual sex (given most male prostitutes offer male-male sex)?
If so, is it relevant that homosexual sex is not inherently procreative?
If contraception is intrinsically evil (if I understand current Catholic teaching right) is it intrinsically evil in homosexual sex as well?
Is he making a distinction between homosexual and heterosexual sex?
Is he now saying it is circumstantially evil only in the case of homosexual sex (which would be a bit radical maybe?) And well how, relevant are male prostitutes in Africa given most AIDs in Africa is transmitted by heterosexual sex?

If a male prostitute would ask a bishop now, in view of the Pope's statement, should I use a condom what do you think a bishop should say?
Would a Catholic be a prostitute in the first place?
Would a non-Catholic even care to ask such a question or care about a bishop's answer?
Would the church say go forth prostitutes and use condoms?
Will they now support campaigns to distribute condoms to prostitutes?
Perhaps the church get involved in such programs as well?

Somehow, I don't think so.

In fact IS the Pope saying anything about the use or non use of condoms or is he REALLY pointing to what their use in certain contexts may signifiy in terms of an awakening or formation of one's moral conscience which may guide one towards the proper view of sex, towards a 'humane' sex.

I am not claiming to know the answers myself, but I have read some commentary from various people who have read the book and will act as a sort of PR team/frontline for the press. Each and every one of them say that even in a few 'controversial' sections the Pope is entirely consistent with what he has always taught.

You however, seem to be suggest he has changed (can you reconcile this with his comments on the plane on his visit to Africa and elsewhere) or at the very least, you seem to have seized on this as the very club you have been seeking to bludgeon those African bishops and whoever else over the head.

I'm not a Catholic but you are, and you have a high profile which affords you the opportunity to influence others and/or disseminate a particular (perhaps erroneous, incomplete, misinformed) view particularly here on a blog where you can express a personal view. Given you have a deep love for the Church and have also made some pretty wild whacky guesses and predictions in the past, should you perhaps be treading a little more carefully on this? Maybe just lisen to what he was trying to say rather than try to mould it to fit into your agenda?

[later Peter Williams adds his four-penn'orth to the conversation]

As I remarked in the last post, and rather seriously, I do wonder what traditionalists like @OTSOTA and pharasaical conservatives like John Smeaton will make of this, especially given their smearing of anyone who even seems to affirm (whether they actually do or not) the 'double effect' argument on sex between a serodiscordant married couple, as 'dissenters'.

As Damian Thompson rightly points out, this is not yet a matter that has been decided by the Magisterium, and consequently faithful orthodox Catholics can disagree on this in good faith and conscience.

The Church has had the opportunity to clarify this question, but I reckon that it doesn't want to, due to the confusion this might cause. However, given that the Holy Father has now made this very humane and rational comment (which, as I have also stated, in no way liberalises the Church's fundamental opposition to Contraception, or its evidence-based policy on HIV prevention), despite the clear potential for confusion amongst lay-people on this point, perhaps this will pave the way for this very contentious bioethical issue to be settled?

In any case, let the crypto-Lefebvrists and liberals wail, but orthodox Catholics will recognise the humanity, rationality, and moral truth, of the Holy Father's position.

[...and yet again I will refrain from commenting on Peter Williams's statement - but please keep it on a back-burner - because it's going to be important - very soon]

Here's Joseph Yarbrough's link

From Joseph Shaw's Philosophy Blog

The Pope on AIDS and condoms

My attention has been drawn to a very interesting article on Alligator online by Michael Webb, which goes into some detail about the research on the effectiveness of condoms. The Pope's claim that condoms 'make things worse' with the AIDS epidemic in Africa has overwhelming plausibility to those who have watched the failure of contraception to reduce so-called 'unwanted pregnancies', and, for that matter, ordinary sexually-transmitted diseases, in the West. If fire-hosing condoms at people doesn't reduce pregancies, it is not going to work with AIDS either. In fact we actually see an increase of pregnancies, and abortions, where contraceptives have been pushed at people; a similarly tragic consequence, one may infer, is likely to happen with AIDS. The fact that the advocates of condoms refuse to accept that this is happening, and insist the situation would be even worse without the condoms, just shows the blind attachment to ideology when you face ostracism and redundancy for dissent.

Why condoms might be counterproductive as preventers of pregnancies and AIDS is, intuitively, that promoting contraception promotes a culture of promiscuity, and the culture of promiscuity is actually not very friendly to putting those rubber things on just at the moment life is getting interesting. Webb, however, uncovers some very interesting research which not only supports the casual empiricism against condoms but gives a slightly different (though not conflicting) explanation, that of 'risk compensation'. When you make an activity safer, people performing the activity will take more risks with it: see 'The Pope was right' on the Cornell Society.

Everything we do is based on an assessment of benefit and risk. We have a certain appetite for risk (as they say in finance), and if something becomes safer, we'll tend to go for the extra benefits associated with taking on another slice of risk. This is really not controversial; the only question, in making things safer in any given situation, is whether the risk compensation will end up making the situation worse over all. It will depend on how much safer people are made to feel, and what the opportunities for greater risk-taking might be.

People in countries afflicted by AIDS are still willing to engage in promiscuous sex: hence AIDS continues to spread. Whatever the (perceived) risk they are running is, that is a level of risk they are happy to live with. If you give them condoms and they wear them 50% of the time, thinking that makes them 50% safer, they would rationally double their number of partners to get back up to the old level of risk. The reward of doing this, of course, is fantastic: twice as many partners! There may, of course, be other factors.

So much for the principle. But this is exactly what many researchers have found. Over to Michael Webb:

Dr Edward Green, Director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at Harvard. “The best evidence we have”, he says, “supports the Pope’s comments. There is a consistent association shown by our best studies between greater availability and use of condoms and higher (not lower) HIV infection rates.” He told me:

In epidemics that are population wide, where most HIV is found in the general population, for whatever reason we can't get people to use condoms consistently, and when they use them at all, that seems to have the effect of disinhibiting people's behaviours so they end up taking greater sexual risks and cancelling whatever risk reduction they have gotten from the technology they're using.

Webb points out that the studies making this point are fairly limited in number: no surprise there, since this is not a conclusion the AIDS industry wants to hear. He also points out that there is agreement accross the debate that IF condoms were used 'consistently and correctly', and IF behaviour didn't change, then condoms would help with AIDS: true, but irrelevant.

More interstingly, Webb makes the odd conclusion that 'the Pope should not make claims that can be interpreted as being scientific.' This is odd because he adds that the Pope's remarks were interpreted as making a claim not supported by the evidence. But the body of Webb's article has shown that it is perfectly scientifically respectable to hold that view; it may not be the view of the WHO but there is plenty of evidence for it, and the WHO is not infallible.

A deeper reason for Webb's criticism of the Pope, however, is that the Pope's position is, or ought to be, really a matter of moral teaching: against promiscuity, and against contraception. Webb seems to think that if this was made clearer, criticism of the Pope would have less traction.

It is true that the Pope's position is driven by moral concerns, and the moral teaching of the Church. But it is because voicing this moral teaching has been condemned as tantamount to mass murder - as Jon Snow gently put it, the Pope is responsible for 'millions of deaths' - that it become necessary to look into the claims being made about the effectiveness of condoms.

Catholic reseachers and all people of good will can and must refute the lies which are used to justify crimes. The Nazi genocide was unjustifiable, but people were persuaded to go along with it on the basis of grotesque lies about the Jews. The Church has had to contend with 'black legends' in every age; the work of the Bollandists on Church history is an example of her response. It is true that even if they were successful, condoms would not be justified, but the Pope in concerned to influence opinion and policy, and the lies must be opposed.

The idea that Catholics should leave the 'facts' in the hands of their opponents to distort at will only has to be stated to be rejected.

...and meanwhile other Orthodox commentators were also jumping into the fray.

Did the Pope “justify” condom use in some circumstances?

A close look at the text reveals no change to Church teaching.
By Father Joseph Fessio, S.J.

Did the Pope “justify” condom use in some circumstances?

No. And there was absolutely no change in Church teaching either. Not only because an interview by the Pope does not constitute Church teaching, but because nothing that he said differs from previous Church teaching.

Then why all the headlines saying that he “approves” or “permits” or “justifies” condom use in certain cases?

That’s a good question. So good that the interviewer himself asked virtually the same question during the interview.

The Pope made a statement in the interview, which statement has now been widely quoted in the worldwide media. Immediately, the interviewer, Peter Seewald, posed this question: “Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?”

The Pope clarified and expanded on his previous statement.

So let’s look at the two statements.

After saying that

“we cannot solve the problem [of AIDS] by distributing condoms…”

and that “the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality…”

the Pope says: There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants.
But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection.
That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality”.

That is a heavily qualified, very tentative statement. Nevertheless, it prompted Seewald’s question, quoted above.
But let’s first take a closer look at this statement.

The original German for “There may be a basis in the case of some individuals…” is “Es mag begründete Einzelfälle geben….” The English here is a faithful, accurate translation.“Begründete” comes from “Grund” = “ground,” and it means both the soil we stand on and a logical foundation.
There is some ambiguity because it could have the weak sense of “some basis for” or a strong sense of “a logical or ethical foundation for.” This is perhaps why Seewald asked the follow-up question, so we’ll turn to that in a moment.

It is important to note that there are two very serious mistranslations in the Italian version of the Pope’s remarks, upon which many early reports were based, since the embargo was broken by the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano. (That’s another story.) First, the German speak of “ein Prostituierter,” which can only be a male prostitute. The normal German word for prostitute is “[eine] Prostituierte,” which is feminine and refers only to a woman. The Italian translation “una prostituta” simply reverses what the Pope says.

Equally problematically, “giustificati” = justified, was used in the Italian translation of “begründete,” and arbitrarily resolves the ambiguity one-sidedly.

The Pope responded: “She [the Church] does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality” (emphasis mine).

In the first place a solution which is not “moral” cannot be “justified.” That is a contradiction and would mean that something in itself morally evil could be “justified” to achieve a good end.

Note: the concept of the “lesser evil” is inapplicable here. One may tolerate a lesser evil; one cannot do something which is a lesser evil.

But the crucial distinction here is between the “intention” of the male prostitute, viz. avoiding infecting his client, and the act itself, viz. using a condom.

Since this distinction has been missed in almost every report I’ve read, it calls for some elaboration.

This distinction, in moral philosophy, is between the object of an act and the intent of an act. If a man steals in order to fornicate, the intent is to fornicate but the object is the act of theft. There is no necessary connection between stealing and fornicating.

In the case of the Pope’s remark, the intent is preventing infection and the object is use of a condom.

...In sum, the Pope did not “justify” condom use in any circumstances. And Church teaching remains the same as it has always been—both before and after the Pope’s statements.

Well? So far things were looking ok - Sure the media had got it all wrong, a few commentators had misunderstood what was being said - but it was only a case of minor damage-limitation...

Little did I have any idea what would follow.....

First rumblings...

2011-01-12T16:19:00.000Z

The Catholic Herald later made it a discussion point:

What was l'Osservatore Romano up to?
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2010/12/10/debate-is-losservatore-romano-undermining-the-church/

...nevertheless they broke the news - and immediately the global media misreported it - "Pope advocates condoms in certain circumstances" - and immediately some people jumped on the bandwagon:

Amazing report: Pope Benedict 'softens Catholic line on condoms to prevent HIV'

By Damian Thompson

An astonishing claim from AFP: that, in a book of interviews to be published on Tuesday, Pope Benedict XVI declares that the use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV is acceptable in some circumstances. [Acceptable? Impossible! Surely Damian must know better than to think this?]

I am praying that this report is true, because the argument it attributes to the Pope is thoroughly humane and reasonable

[Humane & reasonable? - hang about, something's wrong here.

Why would Damian think that Catholic teaching of "absolute abstinence" is inhumane or unreasonable ?

What does he think the Pope is saying ?

...and more importantly - What does he believe the Church teaches?]

– and does not contradict the Church’s teaching against artificial birth control.
[Doesn't it ? Even if it hypothetically doesn't - does it contravene Catholic moral teaching in any other regard?]

Here is the report:

BERLIN (AFP) – Pope Benedict XVI says that condom use is acceptable “in certain cases”, notably “to reduce the risk of infection” with HIV, in a book due out Tuesday, apparently softening his once hardline stance. [It Didn't -but that was yet to be revealed- moving on]
In a series of interviews published in his native German, the 83-year-old Benedict is asked whether “the Catholic Church is not fundamentally against the use of condoms.”
“It of course does not see it as a real and moral solution,” the pope replies.
“In certain cases, where the intention is to reduce the risk of infection, it can nevertheless be a first step on the way to another, more humane sexuality,” said the head of the world’s 1.1 billion Catholics.
The new volume, entitled “Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times”, is based on 20 hours of interviews conducted by German journalist Peter Seewald.
Until now, the Vatican had prohibited the use of any form of contraception — other than abstinence — even as a guard against sexually transmitted disease.
Benedict sparked international outcry in March 2009 on a visit to AIDS-ravaged Africa when he told reporters the disease was a tragedy “that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems.”
To illustrate his apparent shift in position, Benedict offered the example of a male prostitute using a condom.
“There may be justified individual cases, for example when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be … a first bit of responsibility, to re-develop the understanding that not everything is permitted and that one may not do everything one wishes,” Benedict was quoted as saying.
“But it is not the proper way to deal with the horror of HIV infection.”
Benedict reiterated that condom use alone would not solve the problem of HIV/AIDS. “More must happen,” he said.
“Becoming simply fixated on the issue of condoms makes sexuality more banal and exactly this is the reason why so many people no longer find sexuality to be an expression of their love, but a type of self-administered drug.” [Well it was all up in the air at this time - misquotations and mistranslations abound - and everything's being taken out of context - better to move on to the clarified real text in the book itself]

[As I was busy reading what was being reported elsewhere and scry some informed reportage/commentary - I was reticent to comment until it became clear what the Pope had actually said - and in what context - the chinese whispers were everywhere on the internet - and the BBC was reporting a revolutionary change in Catholic teaching. This coudn't be happening - and I was absolutely certain it wasn't happening - this was all a misunderstanding which would rapidly be cleared up]

Now before I move on to what happened next - one poster on Damian's original thread outraged me so much I felt I had to respond [apologies for the inappropriate language and belligerent demeanour - but it was late and I was very tired and even more enraged!]

Anthony Corner

The Pope did not make a "turn-around" in any Catholic teaching!!! (NO Pope can or have in the 2000+ years of this longest standing institution). What the Holy Father has stated in the Seewald book is simply what is called the "Lesser Evil" principle in Catholic Moral Theology (Catechism of the Catholic Church). For eg. if an expectant mother is medically confirmed to be in danger of death owing to a complication in her pregnancy and say, the family has a young child AND who it has been morally reasoned, needs the mother MORE than the family needs the gestating baby, it is RIGHT before God, to procure a medical abortion. In this case, the mother did not willfully seek to kill the baby, but in choosing the good of saving her life for the sake of the greater good of the family, simply was forced to allow the abortion as "lesser evil" in the face no other option.

The only people who have in the past said that the Catholic Church teaches prostitutes cant use condoms is those who have never read the CCC and understood it! In the example the Holy Father used this time in the book, the male prostitute has
already chosen the evil of prostitution. Having done that, he is now confronting the possibility of sleeping with various men and knows he is 50 times more likely than others to contract HIV - which leads to untimely death . So, choosing to use a condom is the "lesser evil" and a more responsible choice than to hasten his untimely death. BUT it doesn't make prostitution or artificial contraception right (like in the case of Abortion in the previous example).

[...and here I enter into the fray - not even able to confront the actual Pope-condoms issue head-on - instead I have to attack someone promoting a 'Lesser Evil' position....]

WTF????!!!!!

Anthony - THAT IS NOT CATHOLIC TEACHING AND NEVER WILL BE!!!

YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY FORBIDDEN TO COMMIT AN OBJECTIVELY EVIL ACT FOR ANY REASON.

This includes judicially murdering an innocent, healthy foetus merely because the mother might die in the process....

Maybe you're confusing it with this?
The removal of an life-threatening ectopic pregnancy is a different scenario in that the child is doomed to die anyway and a life is saved rather than two dying...that is where moral dilemma - recourse to an intrinsically morally disordered act [accelerating a baby's [already imminent] death to prevent an objective evil occurring [the death of both where one could be saved] is permissible.

The fact that the mother has other children or a devoted spouse or any other responsibility - IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE!!!
Catholicism is NOT utilitarian - it CANNOT condone anything deontologically evil irrespective of the outcome - the ends NEVER justify the means.
The foetus cannot be seen as an unjust aggressor - justifying abortion as recourse to killing in self-defence.
The foetus is not culpable - we have no right to murder it.

Lesser evil principle ?
Bollocks - an absolute unmitigated lie.

Fundamental Catholic Moral Theology has very distinct principles - such as compounding an already grave sin.
A prostitute who risks hiv contamination sins gravely and compounds the culpability with offences against the fifth commandment if they do not use a condom.
His Holiness is saying this 'non-compounding' of an already gravely intrinsically morally disordered situation - is a tiny step towards the moral - a human edging towards responsibility..nothing more.

This is not a 'lesser evil' - this is an already grave evil that is not aggravated with further gravity through irresponsibility.

I'm disgusted that you could dare to come on here and promote your murderous ideology and tell a bare-faced lie that it's Catholic teaching.

Meanwhile...

Posted on the Damian Thompson's original thread by Catholic Voices member Peter D Williams

Ooh, I wonder what @OTSOTA and John Smeaton will think of this? ;)

In fact, the Holy Father has not approved of contraception used in the case of a serodiscordant married couple (where the principle of 'double effect' is invoked, the argument that 'ruralvirologist' refers [Ruralvirologist stated : The principle of double effect. Condoms are a legitimate means of preventing HIV; if conception is prevented as an unintented consequence, so be it. ])

, but has simply said, very common-sensically, that if someone is engaging in a sinful act, then to do so in such a way that it would not infect someone with a deadly disease is the "first step on the way to another, more humane sexuality".

Clearly, he is not liberalising the Church's fundamental position on Contraception, or on HIV prevention. Condom proliferation remains stunningly ineffective in reducing HIV infection rates, unlike the behavioural modification initiatives that the Church prescribes.

This is not, contrary to the inevitable spinning of crypto-Lefebvrists and liberals, a 'chink in the armour' of Catholic teaching on contraception. This does, however, represent a realistic and humane statement by the Holy Father, which is typical of his profound intellect and wisdom.

{Now - it would be unfair of me to not allow Peter D Williams the opportunity to clarify, redress, explain or potentially retract what he's said given subsequent events - so I will refrain from commenting directly on what he said until he has either refused or accepted the opportunity to respond}

Meanwhile - elsewhere on the internet a certain lady was very quick of the blocks with a response to the Pope's comments: Professor Janet Smith in an interview with Zenit :

Q: What is Pope Benedict saying?

Smith: We must note that the example that Pope Benedict gives for the use of a condom is a male prostitute; thus, it is reasonable to assume that he is referring to a male prostitute engaged in homosexual acts. The Holy Father is simply observing that for some homosexual prostitutes the use of a condom may indicate an awakening of a moral sense; an awakening that sexual pleasure is not the highest value, but that we must take care that we harm no one with our choices.

He is not speaking to the morality of the use of a condom, but to something that may be true about the psychological state of those who use them. If such individuals are using condoms to avoid harming another, they may eventually realize that sexual acts between members of the same sex are inherently harmful since they are not in accord with human nature.

The Holy Father does not in any way think the use of condoms is a part of the solution to reducing the risk of AIDs. As he explicitly states, the true solution involves "humanizing sexuality." Anyone having sex that threatens to transmit HIV needs to grow in moral discernment. This is why Benedict focused on a "first step" in moral growth.

The Church is always going to be focused on moving people away from immoral acts towards love of Jesus, virtue, and holiness. We can say that the Holy Father clearly did not want to make a point about condoms, but wants to talk about growth in a moral sense, which should be a growth towards Jesus.

Q: So is the Holy Father saying it is morally good for male prostitutes to use condoms?

Smith: The Holy Father is not articulating a teaching of the Church about whether or not the use of a condom reduces the amount of evil in a homosexual sexual act that threatens to transmit HIV. The Church has no formal teaching about how to reduce the evil of intrinsically immoral action. We must note that what is intrinsically wrong in a homosexual sexual act in which a condom is used is not the moral wrong of contraception but the homosexual act itself.

In the case of homosexual sexual activity, a condom does not act as a contraceptive; it is not possible for homosexuals to contracept since their sexual activity has no procreative power that can be thwarted. But the Holy Father is not making a point about whether the use of a condom is contraceptive or even whether it reduces the evil of a homosexual sexual act; again, he is speaking about the psychological state of some who might use condoms. The intention behind the use of the condom (the desire not to harm another) may indicate some growth in a sense of moral responsibility.

In "Familiaris Consortio (On the Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World)," John Paul II spoke of the need for conversion, which often proceeds by gradual steps: "To the injustice originating from sin ... we must all set ourselves in opposition through a conversion of mind and heart, following Christ Crucified by denying our own selfishness: such a conversion cannot fail to have a beneficial and renewing influence even on the structures of society.

"What is needed is a continuous, permanent conversion which, while requiring an interior detachment from every evil and an adherence to good in its fullness, is brought about concretely in steps which lead us ever forward. Thus a dynamic process develops, one which advances gradually with the progressive integration of the gifts of God and the demands of His definitive and absolute love in the entire personal and social life of man. (9)"

Christ himself, of course, called for a turning away from sin. That is what the Holy Father is advocating here; not a turn towards condoms. Conversion, not condoms!

Q: Would it be proper to conclude that the Holy Father would support the distribution of condoms to male prostitutes?

Smith: Nothing he says here indicates that he would. Public programs of distribution of condoms run the risk of conveying approval for homosexual sexual acts. The task of the Church is to call individuals to conversion and to moral behavior; it is to help them understand the meaning and purpose of sexuality and to help them come to know Christ, who will provide the healing and graces that enable us to live in accord with the meaning and purpose of sexuality.

Q: Is Pope Benedict indicating that heterosexuals who have HIV could reduce the wrongness of their acts by using condoms?

Smith: No. In his second answer he says that the Church does not find condoms to be a "real or moral solution." That means the Church does not find condoms either to be moral or an effective way of fighting the transmission of HIV. As the Holy Father indicates in his fuller answer, the most effective portion of programs designed to reduce the transmission of HIV are calls to abstinence and fidelity.

The Holy Father, again, is saying that the intention to reduce the transmission of any infection is a "first step" in a movement towards a more human way of living sexuality. That more human way would be to do nothing that threatens to harm one's sexual partner, who should be one's beloved spouse. For an individual with HIV to have sexual intercourse with or without a condom is to risk transmitting a lethal disease.

An analogy: If someone was going to rob a bank and was determined to use a gun, it would better for that person to use a gun that had no bullets in it. It would reduce the likelihood of fatal injuries. But it is not the task of the Church to instruct potential bank robbers how to rob banks more safely and certainly not the task of the Church to support programs of providing potential bank robbers with guns that could not use bullets.

Nonetheless, the intent of a bank robber to rob a bank in a way that is safer for the employees and customers of the bank may indicate an element of moral responsibility that could be a step towards eventual understanding of the immorality of bank robbing.

Message from the Save Cardinal Vaughan School group.

2011-01-12T13:58:00.001Z

Update: Cristina Odone blogs on the issue :

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/cristinaodone/100071893/catholic-schools-and-the-enemy-within/

Dear All,

Please take the time to read this. The Vaughan Parents Group has set up a website at the following address:

https://sites.google.com/site/vaughanparentsactiongroup/
Please JOIN the group for regular updates.

As you may know, the appeal against placing Paul Barber, the man who want to change the Vaughan irrevocably, as a governor of our school, somehow failed. It is hoped that with your continued support the case can be heard - there is no clearer conflict of interest in my mind.

- There is NOT A SINGLE parent of a boy at the school on the governing body.

- The chairman of the governors is current chairman at another school in the diocese - how can he devote the time needed in the role to the Vaughan and act in the Vaughan's best interests?

The new governing body is a logic-defying daylight coup by the diocese who are determined to change the school rather than focus on other catholic schools which underperform hugely.

The next meeting of the Vaughan Governing Body will take place on 2ND FEBRUARY AT THE SCHOOL. The Vaughan Parents' Action Group is organising a Candlelit Vigil, beginning at 6.15 outside the School. The primary intention of the Vigil is to pray for the future of the School, but we also want to make the governors aware of the strength of feeling of parents, pupils, Old Vaughanians and others.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE turn out en masse to show your support for the school. This method has worked before when the diocese wanted to remove the sixth form and WITH YOUR SUPPORT - IT CAN WORK AGAIN.

This is a very dark time for the school we love and owe so much to. Please tell everyone you know about the vigil and make every effort to attend. The new governing body MUST be made aware of the strength of feeling against its new make up and this is our only chance to do it before the Diocese attempts to thrust a headmaster upon the school who will not be sympathetic to the schools ethos, catholic past, present and catholic future.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DO ALL YOU CAN TO HELP

The Promise - Confronting Fr Martin Rhonheimer and his lethally erroneous 'prophylactic intent'

2011-01-12T10:11:00.000Z

Here's the deal: I was on James Preece's blog "Catholic and Loving it" the other day - discussing the technicalities of the scandalous Rhonheimer/Ivereigh paradigm...

[regarding condom-use for prophylaxis being permissible if the intention is towards preventing transmission of infection rather while inadvertenly and unintentionally contraceptive]

...with Nicolas Bellord - the lawyer who has unswervingly campaigned against the conspiracy with the Culture of Death at the St John & St Elizabeth Hospital [provision of contraceptives, morning-after pill, abortion referrals etc - ongoing after direct orders from the present Pontiff for it to cease - alas +Cormac and +Vin have defiantly refused to exercise their Apostolic duty to prevent this - but that's another story]

I commented that if I were able to return to my blog I would definitely "Take on Rhonheimer" and disseminate his writings - but that would require a new computer as my present one wouldn't even permit me access to my blog without crashing...

Now God certainly has a sense of humour; for at that very instant on another side of town my partner Nicky and my elder son Jay were staring at a 'special offer p.c.' and conspired between themselves to buy it for me - irrespective of our having no money - they bought it on the credit card.

So - here I am!

...I've been challenged to actually 'put up or shut up'

But where does one start?

I've lost virtually all my blog-followers because of my long-term absence ; so who will ever read this ?

What right have I to challenge the 'great and good', the 'movers and shakers' in the modern Church ?

Well ?
I don't think I'd be able to look myself in the mirror if I didn't do this now - because this is important - and I've yet to see anyone delivering the authentic orthodox Catholic teaching on the issue in full - and that terrifies me !
The whole Church should be speaking with one voice on this issue - and frankly it isn't - the Faithful should be fully aware of the Catholic teaching - and it isn't!

Not only that: The faithful are being lied to : By Catholic journalists, commentators, priests, bloggers, the Catholic media...and the voices of orthodoxy [even prominent Princes of the Church] are being dismissed, suppressed, ignored or even misrepresented.

Now I've been on the online Catholic scene for over a decade - and never before have I witnesed such a travesty - such a distortion of reality - and it terrifies me - for this fiasco to occur less than a year after the systemic anti-papal witch hunt by the mainstream media over his alleged cover-up of sexual abuse ?
It's deplorable !
A scandal upon us all.
...and there will be consequences for our failure.

So? This looks like it's going to be a long-term endeavour so I'd better hurry up about it and decide where to begin...
2004 and the Tablet article?
No : beginning at the beginning will only confuse the issue.
Tell you what - let's start at that fateful night when l'Osservatore Romano reported the Papal comments from 'Light of the World'.

On Bishops [from a comment on Bishop Roche [Dec '07]]

2010-11-03T10:42:00.000Z

We were discussing Bishop Roche of Leeds and his 'despicable and saddening ' response to the Motu Proprio; including Fr Z's response on the WDTPRS blog:

What is a Bishop these days ?
What makes him special ?
I mean in his self-identity ?
Everything occurring around him is glaring in his face that he is 'nobody special, nobody unique': In fact when it comes to the majority of things ecclesiatical , he is quite lacking in knowledge, experience; and the authority that consequentially comes with it.

The canonical judge and the few diocesan DCLs will have to embarassingly instruct him on canonical procedure.
The paper-shufflers in the finance office will be constantly reminding him how economically ignorant he is.
The diocesan liturgists and catechists [even amongst the professional laity] will be using acronyms and a Newspeak he can hardly be expected to be 'au fait' with.
The National conference of bishops' lackies present in every diocese will be shoving in his face how new initiatives and educational procedures/programmes [of which he is invariably oblivious and 'out of the loop'] must be implemented.

The vicar general, the vicar for the clergy and the occasional dean and monsignor/canon will be a lot more capable, experienced and talented for the episcopal role in certain aspects [theology/ethics/scripture/real parish life/ the attitudes of the ordinary laity;the rural/urban priest; the youth, the schools etc ] and this unwittingly demeans the notion of self-worth of the bishop: who more often than not feels like a fraud, a phoney, and not exactly the most qualified for the role he has been given.

The pastoral commissions and their initiatives, the educational committees, the adult formation , the RCIA, the youth groups etc - they all continue with the bishop as the nominal head - but how involved he becomes is optional and utterly discretionary - they can all get on without him very nicely....

All this results in a major identity crisis for the bishop - he never feels that he is who he should be...

Ok so what about the traditional roles of being a spiritual leader, a grandfather-teacher, the overlord shepherd ?

No-one is naiive enough to believe that on the ground anything remotely like that occurs:
he isn't exactly respected in the way the mere title afforded in days past, he isn't really 'liked'; and any conversation is so laden with either sycophancy or hidden agendas, so loaded with nervous feelings of discomfort or underlying motives - that ultimately he has no shoulder to rest on ; no-one in whom to confide - nobody whom he can ever truly trust or rely upon. Surrounded by so many - the Bishop is lonely beyond imagining!

All too often the whole life of a bishop can revert to a phoney comedy of manners. I've witnessed it at first hand so many times it brings me close to tears of both sadness and frustration at the whole ridiculous scenario.

So how does a bishop react ?
Nine times out of ten they play the game - they adopt a role to cover-up the inauthenticity they feel inside - a mask to obfuscate the feelings of inadequacy.

a] the Grandad/Santa Claus - always surrounded by kids - oh so devoted to the youth !

b] the dalai lama - spouting the same few epithets and placatory pietisms - forever implying he has either some universal wisdom or some ethereal empathic knowledge of what is going on all around him - sheer mystagoguery.

c] the chairman of the board - adopting the role of being the head honcho - overlord of everything that occurs in the diocese [even if he has no idea what is really occurring or has no knowledge or experience in how anything should be run] he becomes the outspoken figurehead [to keep the shareholders happy. sic !]

d] [the new phenomenon] Uncle Dave ! Open shirt, jeans -wearing , one of the lads being pastorally relevant and not afraid to join in , rolling his sleeves up, going in the stocks at the local fete, waving his arms in a t-shirt at the charismatic renewal , building a raft with the kids at youth camp, sitting gossiping about eastenders with the young mums at the creche; kicking a ball around with the lads at the remand centre - you know the type ?

e] The expert - the bishop who is nationally renowned in some small way on some issue - be it the liturgy /youth/ethics/ecology/politics/ pastoral ministry etc and devotes most of his time writing vast tomes/addressing conferences /attending committees or appearing on the today programme regarding that single issue....

But ultimately it comes to the crunch -and what does the bishop have when everything has been laid bare and it's now down on the line?

Ecclesiastical authority !
Above everything else - no matter how ignorant he may be ethically, theologically, scripturally, canonically, liturgically, experientially, pastorally - one thing they - 'No, No , they can't take that away from me' - is his authority...

...and when a bishop feels like he has absolutely nothing else to validate his role, justify his self-worth - he will use that power!
...and more often than not it will not be in order to do something - it will be to accentuate the fact that the power is being used - that the authority is there and is being actuated !
This is a question of vindication by using power for power's sake.

Normatively the easiest way to exercise that authority is with a strict adherence to the status quo - which is at present enmeshed within the liturgical , catechetical and doctrinal catastrophe inflicted upon us in the seventies and eighties - yet please remember : the present bishops weren't the instigators of the 'liberal' change - they were merely the participants being brainwashed into believing this was the ONLY way - and it's now their perceived role to perpetuate it - and they have more than enough of the professional laity and clerical inner ring in the eschelons of the National conference of Bishops etc to reinforce that position - but now it's different - the voices that stayed silent for twenty years are now resurging and are growing - and ultimately these 'disruptive voices against the enforced homogenised unity' have the backing of a papacy and a long-suffering 'dispossessed' laity/new young clergy - unwilling to roll over and play 'dead from the neck up' just to placate the implementors of the progressive travesties....

So whom do they back ? Do the bishops stay with their friends in the inner ring of professional clergy and laity; who want everything to be business as usual ?
Or do they reach out to the clerics and the majority of the laity who are desperate for a reformation and renewal, a resurgence reclaiming that which has been lost ?
Either way they have to compromise in some way and have to endure some form of hostility which may undermine the stability the bishop clings to - like the dead salmon in the stream going with the flow and not making the big splashes a live one would.

Yet again it all lies in self-identity - and how authentic the bishop is willing to be, and how much of a price he is willing to pay ?

Sure, a good bishop who had been part of the modernising agenda would be a little self -deprecatory, realise that certain things went beyond the pale and things lost need to be reclaimed to maintain tradition in a new light - but to acct in such a manner requires a bravery and a willingness to endure the pretty nasty reaction of his associates and even more than that - a nasty backlash from the conference of bishops ! - They had few scruples in decimating the liturgy and catechesis and the concepts of pastoral ministry/parish life - how do you think they would react to one of their own who has 'gone over to the other side' !!??

Certainly it may be ostensibly cowardly for the bishop to just go with the flow ; but is he getting any support to act contrarily or stand against it all with integrity ? Or are we who constantly affirm he would receive all our support , yet again "all mouth and no trousers " ? Refusing to acknowledge any offering of the hand for unity and reconciliation ? Rather we adopt the mantra of 'once a heretic/modernist/liberal/reprobate/opportunist/ delete as applicable...always one !'

I pity them too - but I do understand their sensibilities of feeling trapped in the whole system they helped support and maintain - and the prospects of abandoning it looking pretty bleak and unwelcoming - as well as unforgiving on all sides....

More often then not a bishop will fall back upon the security of the collective - the "professional clergy and laity" of the inner ring - and when they ever exert their will , it is to re-inforce everything the eidolon of the 'renewed' National Conference of Bishops [and all its pervasive contaminating exigent branches] hold dear....

...and this is basically what Bishop Roche is doing - admittedly he has many other reasons for his letter - the fear of the latin and its 'Tridentinist' overtones, the ignorance of the extraordinary form , the potential subversion of his diocese by clerics and laity, and the grief that may ensue from a disrupted antagonistic liturgical committee or hostile clerics...but this isn't the main motivation....

Fr Z noticed it in the letter - Bishop Roche's use of the episcopal subjunctive - the desperate cling for personal validation - the use of the authority to ameliorate all the misgivings and incapacities and disillusionments and feelings of futility.

Bishops who write letters like this show distinct signs of feeling disenfranchised from their true role. He is certainly not alone. The Conference of Bishops may seem like a bunch of ignorant bullies - but beneath the surface it's filled to the brim with more than a modicum of paranoid narcissists with identity crises so severe they can no longer act remotely like spiritual leaders or teachers - merely collective initiators of procedure ! Their spiritual and evangelical impotency becomes subsumed with merely exercising their authority for its own sake; then spending hour after hour in committee and debate discussing that authority.

Our Bishops desperately need our prayers - but more they need a bucket of ice water over their head, a reassuring hug ; and then a kick up the backside ! Followed by a long long frank discussion regarding who they really are - with each other, with His Holiness, with the priests, the laity -but most especially - with God.

Fulton Sheen - Loneliness

2010-03-04T08:48:00.000Z

Fr Corapi - Society's Death Wish...

2010-01-18T14:02:00.002Z

Fluffy Shoe-Gazing / Reminiscing {The Field Mice "Quicksilver"}

2009-12-10T13:19:00.001Z

von Balthasar on The impossibility of Women Priests

2009-11-21T17:18:00.002Z

The Uninterrupted Tradition of the Church
Hans Urs von Balthasar,
published in L'Osservatore Romano (February 24, 1977):6-7

1. The Declaration Touched on All the Decisive Dimensions of the Problem

The declaration of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the question of the admission of women to the ministerial priesthood has prudently touched on all the decisive dimensions of the problem. It was not afraid to penetrate into the depths of the mystery, from which such liberating and convincing light shines forth for the true believer. Certainly, the actual proof which justifies the Church's way of acting is given in sections 2-4 on the normative way of action of Christ, then of the apostles and then of the tradition of the Church. The constancy of this tradition is presented finally not as a "kind of archaism, but as faithfulness" to her own founder. It is precisely here that it derives its "normative character."

Only after this primary historical proof does the declaration go on in section 5 to a thorough consideration of "appropriateness" (convenientia), according to the "analogy of faith," as St. Paul called it. But we must not let ourselves be led astray here by words: where it is a question of mysteries of the faith, convenientia means something quite different from a mere approximative rightness, or a merely human "suitableness" that might be simply fortuitous and relative. It means rather what convenientia, originally meant: coming together, inner harmony, such as an organism achieves in the balance of its various organs.

The declaration insists expressly on the impossibility of transforming the mysteries of faith into truths considered on the purely rational plane. Among these mysteries belong also the sacraments, and therefore the institution of the ordained ministry in the Church, These mysteries have their own hermeneutics and interpretation, which are accessible and comprehensible only for those who, believing, let themselves be led by the mystery of Christ and the multiple aspects which belong to it in an organic way, into the depths of their inner harmony and plausibility. St. Anselm did not hesitate to attribute a "necessity" to this internal harmony in God, in spite of all the freedom of divine disposition. For even if we must always concede to the sovereignty of God the possibility of acting differently from the way he deigned to act, we have not in any way the freedom to relativize his logic: He is absolute reason, the logos itself. Neither have we the freedom to picture in our imagination other ways which he could have taken.
II. Regarding Tradition . . . , Everything Depends on Whether the Aspect in Question Belongs to the Essence of the Structures of the Church

It was necessary to make this premise before being able to tackle in a meaningful way the problem that concerns us. For it is clear a -priori that the mere fact of a hitherto uninterrupted custom of the Church cannot represent a sufficient proof that this custom could not be changed because of important insights of changed cultural circumstances. If any conclusion is to be drawn from uninterrupted tradition, everything depends on whether the aspect in question belongs to the essence of the structure of the Church, as it was instituted by Christ, or not. There are also other aspects, for which important motives or appropriateness can be indicated, but which can be described only as highly suitable— and not "necessities" in St. Anselm's sense. As an example one could mention priestly celibacy. Although it is possible to point to a long and persistent tradition in such cases, they are not such a central part of the substance of the mystery of the Church. This can be seen from the Pastoral Epistles, in which mention is made of married pastors of local churches. There is also mention of "Peter's mother-in-law." In the Gospel, in fact, Jesus and Paul, in their recommendation of celibacy, merely advise it.

Therefore, argumentation on the basis of the uninterrupted tradition of the Church must necessarily be able to find support in a moment that is contained in the very essence of the structure of the Church and of its sacramentality; a moment preserved from any intervention by the Church to bring about changes (since the latter cannot change at will, but must accept herself, as she was born), and which, in its complete and substantial logic, becomes understandable for faith only if it is considered in the "analogy of faith," in the context of the mystery of the faith as a whole. Now, the essential harmony between the order of creation and the order of redemption belongs to this connection. The redemptive mystery "Christ-Church" is the superabundant fulfillment of the mystery of creation between man and woman, as Paul affirms very forcefully, so that the fundamental mystery of creation is called "great" precisely in view of its fulfillment in the mystery of redemption. The natural sexual difference is charged, as difference, with a supernatural emphasis, of which it is not itself aware, so that outside of Christian revelation it is possible to arrive at various deformations of this difference such as, for example, a one-sided matriar-chate or patriarchate, an underestimation of women, or, finally, such a leveling of the sexes as to destroy all the values of sexuality. It is only from the indestructible difference between Christ and the Church (prepared, but not yet incarnate in the difference between Yahweh and Israel) that there is reflected the decisive light about the real reciprocity between man and woman.
III. The Concept of Apostolic Succession Is Decisive in the Catholic and in the Oriental Churches

The conferring of the priestly ministry only on men, unchanged in a history of two thousand years, shows clearly enough, as the "declaration" sets forth, that the Church considers it as part of the substance given to her from her very foundation. Particularly important, here, is the testimony of the Oriental Church, which never deviated from the original tradition, although "her ecclesiastical organization admits a great difference in many other problems." And the deviations in the Churches born from the Reformation are quite clearly connected with a changed, weakened relationship between the people of the Church and the apostolic office. This relationship was largely conceived as detached from the concrete succession from the apostles—and therefore also from the structure of the apostolic Church—and constructed directly on the common priesthood of all the faithful.

In the Catholic Church, on the contrary, as in the Orthodox one, the concept of apostolic succession is decisive. The primitive Church was clearly a structured community, because of the ministry set up by Christ for the believing community—with full powers over the authentic proclamation of the word and the administration of the sacraments. And this was to remain so throughout the centuries by means of full powers always transmitted concretely and personally. Continuity with the origin consists, from the Catholic and Orthodox point of view, not only in the faith, but also in the organ responsible for Orthodox faith (and the presence of Christ in the sacraments belongs to this faith): the episcopal office. Even before the existence of a concrete community, Christ at least prepared this office through the calling of the Twelve and the attribution of full powers to them (Mk 3:14f). These "full powers" were already christological: the authorization to proclaim Christ's doctrine in his name and to reject the spirit of the anti-Christ with his power, in the Holy Spirit. This means that here, apparently close to the beginning of his public activity, Jesus granted a participation in his precise messianic function. And this function of the Messiah was, already in accordance with the expectation of the Old Testament, that of representing God and his definitive work of salvation to his people. Hence the apostolic office will always be primarily an office (and, consequently, a responsibility) of representing God, from now on concretely in Jesus Christ.

But representation is a strangely ambiguous phenomenon. It says at the same time something positive: the representative had received from the one he represents full powers to make something of his superiority or dignity present, without being able to claim for himself—and here we have the negative element—this superiority or dignity. This duality makes the concept of representation, and therefore also of the apostolic office, so vulnerable and also so liable to misuse.

In the natural order of the sexes, the representation of God and of his "glory" (doxa) is to be found, according to Paul, in the creation of man (1 Cor 11:7). But it is brought home to him how much man is only reflection and not the glory itself: "for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God" (v. 12). In the Christian supernatural order, which has its foundation in the natural order, the duality is even more marked; the apostle, as "God's fellow worker," just because he represents Christ, is put "last of all." He is the servant of everyone, who considers it normal that "we are weak, but you are strong. You are held in honour, but we in disrepute" (1 Cor 4:9f).

Now, throughout Catholic tradition and its concept of concrete succession, there passes, at least by underground channels, the awareness of this insuppressible dualism of priestly representation. Even if often, owing to sinful forgetfulness, one-sided emphasis was laid, in a presumptuous clericalism, on the positive aspect of representation—to the extent of the excessive exaltation of the priest as an "alter Christi," which does not exist—yet it has always been recalled too, especially by the saints but also by the ecclesiastical authority, that the apostolic office is only a service for the Church and in the Church, and the service is all the purer, the more specific it is. Namely service of the transmission of God's gifts, which the priest in no way possesses by himself or even only essentially in himself, and which he transmits through his office all the better, to the extent to which he becomes completely a pure instrument of transmission.
IV. Woman Does Not Represent, but Is, While Man has to Represent and Therefore Is More and Less Than What He Is ...

All this, however, becomes really clear only when one looks at the subject to which the male apostolic service has to dedicate itself: the Church of the faithful of Christ, which—not to mention the Old Testament image of Israel as the bride of Yahweh—is always presented as feminine in the New Testament. According to the major ecclesial reflection, which is well founded on New Testament declarations, this femininity of the Church belongs just as deeply to tradition as the attribution of the apostolic office to man. For patristic theology, as well for the scholastics of the Middle Ages and also of the baroque period, the Church is the mother of the faithful and at the same time the bride of Christ. She stands as the sublime woman in Church portals, as opposed to the crumbling synagogue. In innumerable miniatures, she is presented as the only woman standing under the cross, she holds up the sacred chalice to collect Christ's blood; she is, particularly in Oriental theology, the definitive incarnation of divine Wisdom, who receives and bears in her womb all the seeds of the Logos, dispersed in creation and throughout the history of salvation.

I cannot help thinking here of two books by Louis Bouyer: the first one, Le Trône de la Sagesse, is older (1957); the second one, Mystère et ministère de la femme (Aubier, 1976) is new and concerns our subject expressly. Its main purpose is to shed light, even more than on the "femininity" of the Church, on the sexual-personal role of woman. While man, as a sexual being, only represents what he is not and transmits what he does not actually possess, and so is, as described, at the same time more and less than himself, woman rests on herself, she is fully what she is, that is, the whole reality of a created being that faces God as a partner, receives his seed and spirit, preserves them, brings them to maturity, and educates them. One can question this thesis of Bouyer in many ways, and we will do so elsewhere. But in the first place its central point is certainly to be accepted, all the more so in that it represents the core of an ecclesiastical tradition, which is free here of all peripheric scoriae and obscurities due to hellenistic misogyny (which is partly re-echoed in the fathers of the Church and in the Middle Ages).

Unfortunately, this liberation and renewal of a great tradition, parallel to that of the sacred ministry, falls in an age in which the whole fruitfulness of the differentiation of the sexes in their respective roles is more and more forgotten and intentionally suffocated. And this in favor of a "masculinization" of a whole civilization, marked by a male technical rationality, a masculinization which is sought under the pretextof equality of rights and parity of the sexes. Inasmuch as the sexual sphere is opened to all technical manipulations, the personal height and depth of the difference of the sexes loses its significance. All "services" are put on the same plane and are therefore interchangeable. Even if man cannot conceive and give birth, why cannot woman carry out in the Church each of these apparently neuter "services" which are entrusted to man?

It is above all this overestimation of the masculine, which objectivizes the spirit and imprisons sexuality in a low physiological sphere, which today opposes understanding of the attitude of the Church, when she remains faithful to her tradition. Here, too, the principle holds good that "gratia supponit naturam." Restored nature would bring to light— within the parity of nature and parity of value of the sexes—above all the fundamental difference, according to which woman does not represent, but is, while man has to represent and, therefore, is more and less than what he is. Insofar as he is more, he is woman's "head" and on the Christian plane intermediary of divine goods; but insofar as he is less, he depends upon woman as a haven of refuge and exemplary fulfillment.

It is not possible here, for lack of space, to show in detail this difference in equality of nature; in particular the question would have to be discussed of the masculinity of Christ, in his eucharist, in which he, on a plane above the sexes, gives himself to the Church entirely as the dedicated seed of God—and the participation, difficult to formulate, of the apostolic office in this male fertility, which is above sex. Only if this aspect were fully brought to light, would man's latent inferiority to woman be overcome in some way. But it must suffice to have mentioned this concept.
V. The Virgin Mary Is the Privileged Place Where God Can and Wishes to be Received in the World

It should give woman a feeling of exaltation to know that she— particularly in the virgin-mother Mary—is the privileged place where God can and wishes to be received in the world. Between the first incarnation of the "Word of God in Mary and its ever new arrival in the receiving Church, there exists an inner continuity. This and only this is the decisive Christian event, and insofar as men are in the Church, they must participate—whether they have an office or not—in this comprehensive femininity of the Marian Church. In Mary, the Church, the perfect Church, is already a reality, long before there is an apostolic office. The latter remains secondary and instrumental in its representation and, just because of the deficiency of those who hold office (Peter!), is so made that the grace transmitted remains unharmed by this deficiency. He who has an office must endeavor, as far as he can, to remove this deficiency, but not by approaching Christ as head of the Church, but by learning to express and live better the fiat that Mary addressed to God one and triune.

As can be seen from all this, the tradition of the Church is far more deeply rooted than might be thought at first sight. It goes down into unfathomable depths, but what we can grasp of it and express in shimmering words shows us that it is within its rights and cannot be challenged by changes in times and opinions (also as regards the role of the sexes).

The Voices you want to hear stand up for Catholicism in the Media

2009-10-06T20:11:00.002+01:00

Off-topic but important for all Catholics :
-
Whom do you consider are the voices for mainstream orthodox Catholicism in this country ?
Fr Ray Blake wants your opinion:
-
http://marymagdalen.blogspot.com/2009/10/voice-of-mainstream-catholicism-who.html

URGENT !

2009-10-06T14:12:00.004+01:00

Greetings,

I ask you to go to this website and sign the UN Petition for the Unborn Child.

A coalition of pro-life and pro-family groups, being led by C-FAM (Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute) will present the petition names to the UN this December. Their goal is 1 million names!

I urge you to go to http://www.c-fam.org/campaigns/lid.2/default.asp , read the petition, and then sign the petition and send this link to everyone you know.

At this site you will also see the petition has been translated into more than 15 languages. It is truly universal!

Please go to http://www.c-fam.org/campaigns/lid.2/default.asp and sign the petition and then forward this message to EVERYONE YOU KNOW!

Many thanks.
Paul

Another reminder on the dangers of mixing Fundamental Moral theology with ostensibly corroborating scientific evidence,,,

2009-09-28T16:18:00.002+01:00

Just to Remember...Trust the Holy Spirit working through His Holiness

2009-09-10T14:45:00.002+01:00

I cannot remember writing this...but I need to remind myself that we should daily thank God for His Holiness...

"1] This is where the subtlety lies - tying a successor's hands - giving them virtually no manoeuvrability - being categorically precise - clinically diamantine doctrinally ; having fundamental moral principles set in stone. This is where His Holiness [and his phenomenal team] excels without contemporary comparison....How ? Well it's very technical ; and you have to scrutinise the writing ; but Benedict XVI is ensuring catholic dogma and morals are becoming inextricably linked with unbreakable bonds - he's bringing to the fore adamantine connections to ensure that future generations cannot jeopardise or compromise catholic positions without it leading to all manner of absolutely unacceptable conclusions.
.
Take for instance contraception : Where John Paul II went off course with the Theology of the Body [don't get me wrong - it's all fine and dandy - but it's nothing to do with the fundamental theological principles inherant within our natural law approach - it's sourced in it of course - but its a how ; not a why - and for moral theologians to base sexual and life morality on it is confusing and can lead to serious 'ethical reverse-engineering' problems.] Instead Benedict reiterates the natural law teaching within Casti Connubii, the Allocutios to the Doctors and Midwives and Humanae Vitae - of the inseparability of the unitive and procreative aspects of human lovemaking.
.
This gives a cast-iron holism to sexual morality ; and makes it virtually impossible for any future papacy to even attempt to revoke it. Were we to remain in the transient wavering obfuscatory miasma of pragmatisms that could so easily contaminate the theology of the body - it could simply be altered by the unscrupulous into a pro-contraceptive agenda.
.
Doctrinally the big offensive assault by the progressivists is going to be against original sin and the mass [esp. the real presence] - the old doctrines may be perfectly fine for supporting the dogma ; but for defending them we need new powerful inviolable symbolism of the formal reality within the doctrine - and His Holiness using in particular the work of von Balthasar has provided an asbestos formula with the diachronicity of salvific grace and the moral disordering nature of sin ; and universal conspiracy in original sin's actuation - not only are we our brother's keeper ; we share the burden of culpability for all our scarring - not only does this compound the universal efficacy of prayer ; it concretises it - not only does this prevent scientific and psychological obscurantism of our heritage ; it compounds personal and mutual responsibility to such an extent that the dogma of original sin becomes as blatant and understandable as the nose on our faces. It makes the sacrifice upon calvary the alpha point reaching forwards and backwards throughout history - shooting out into transcendental anticipatory events and prophecy [it validates the last supper, the immaculate conception, the global heralding of the incarnation among every race and creed ; it substantiates the whole notion of the mass as being the return to that single sacrificial calvary event ; it vindicates the religious revelation , mysticism and inspired wisdom by its interaction and harmony with the pentecostal sending forth of the Holy Spirit - it makes the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church an authentic living entity and not merely a source or path among many.
.
Pope Benedict has undertaken a great theological re-wiring scheme - where everything is all part of a single system - the modernist or progressive may attempt cut a myriad of doctrinal wires; but the orthodox power source still gets through to every principle and ideal from the most obscure or hitherto ignored source. It's sheer genius - and ironically the source material came from the Church Fathers and Doctors - de Lubac [et al ] didn't exactly realise that when he was resurrecting the differentiating theologians [who sought to separate and classify] he was providing a vast array of resources to integrate catholic theology into a single entity supplemented and complemented by everything else within the Mystical Body of Christ.
.
No longer is the modernist merely fighting a dragon where a single lucky blow can decapitate - within Benedictine writings and teachings the modernist now fights a hydra - it chops off one head and two grow back in its stead - it tries to attack one 'ology' and a dozen other 'ologies' now fight alongside to defend that principle - some the modernist may be very reluctant or virtually impotent to enter conflict with....
.
With Ratzinger our faith and morals are not just built on rock ; they're now buttressed and arched all over the place....and it would be an almost impossible task for any future progressivist papacy or oecumenical council to attempt to knock everything down in order to breach a wall.
.
2] You worry about the 'overly cautious' prudence - what you're not really considering is even though futurechurch and the progressivist agenda is a busted flush - it's desperate and aggresssively destructive in in its death pangs ; as dangerous as a wounded tiger . Instead of a cavalry charge His Holiness and the armies of light are crawling through the minefield ; defusing explosives and incapacitating the last few lethal bastions of opposition.
.
Every easter we sing 'battle is o'er , hell's armies flee' - yes we're victorious but the past 2,000 years have been skirmishes with the bitterly twisted adversary trying to drag everyone and everything down with him into the abyss of defeat.
.
Futurechurch and the progressivistas are so incorrigably and pitiably vindictive and petty - that which they cannot convert to their agenda they will seek to either annihilate or adumbrate with calumnies.
.
If they persist in declaring sour grapes all too often the gullible believe all grapes are sour, the vineyard owner soured them , and ultimately all wine is vinegar they must never drink... See my point ?
.
Just because futurechurch has lost the war ; it doesn't mean it isn't still terribly dangerous and won't launch a good few final volleys and suicide missions before it perishes.
.
His Holiness is playing a most dangerous game - previously we always had assassins and fifth columnists - but now we ave kamikaze pilots to deal with too. This cautious prudence isn't cowardice ; it's bravery compounded with understanding."

Ahem...ahem..what's this ? Pope was right regarding Condoms ?

2009-08-28T16:49:00.001+01:00

from Zenit

The director of Harvard's AIDS Prevention Research Project is affirming that Benedict XVI's position was right in the debate on AIDS and condoms.

Edward Green stated this in an address at the 30th annual Meeting for Friendship Among Peoples in Rimini, sponsored by the lay movement, Communion and Liberation.

Green, an expert on AIDS prevention, said that "as a scientist he was amazed to see the closeness between what the Pope said last March in Cameroon and the results of the most recent scientific discoveries."

He affirmed: "The condom does not prevent AIDS. Only responsible sexual behavior can address the pandemic."

Green continued, "When Benedict XVI said that different sexual behavior should be adopted in Africa, because to put trust in condoms does not serve to fight against AIDS, the international press was scandalized."

The Pope made this statement in a meeting with journalists en route to Africa last March.

The scientist affirmed that the Holy Father spoke the truth. He noted, "The condom can work for particular individuals, but it will not serve to address the situation of a continent."

Change habits

Green added: "To propose the regular use of the condom as prevention in Africa could have the opposite effect."

He explained the phenomenon of human behavior called "risk compensation," whereby a person "feels protected and thus exposes himself more."

The researcher and medical anthropologist asked: "Why has an attempt not been made to change people's customs?"

"The world industry has taken many years to understand that measures of a technical and medical character are of no use to solve the problem," he added.

Green highlighted the successful policies that have been implemented in Uganda to battle AIDS, programs based in the "ABC" strategy: "Abstain, Be faithful, and, as a last resource, use a Condom."

He reported: "In the case of Uganda, an impressive result has been obtained in the fight against AIDS.

"The president was able to tell the truth to his people, to young people, that on occasions some sacrifice, abstinence and fidelity are necessary.

"The result has been formidable."

From Yesterday's General Audience : Real Priests for Life

2009-08-20T21:00:00.001+01:00

I offer a warm welcome to the English-speaking visitors present at today’s Audience, including the pilgrims from India and Nigeria. Our catechesis considers Saint John Eudes whose feast we celebrate today. He lived in seventeenth-century France which, notwithstanding considerable trials for the faith, produced many outstanding examples of spiritual courage and insight. Saint John Eudes’ particular contribution was the foundation of a religious congregation dedicated to the task of giving solid formation to the diocesan priesthood. He encouraged seminarians to grow in holiness and to trust in God’s love revealed to humanity in the priestly heart of Jesus and in the maternal heart of Mary. During this year let us pray in a special way for priests and seminarians that, inspired by today’s saint, they may spiritually “enter into the heart of Jesus”, becoming men of true love, mercy, humility and patience, renewed in holiness and pastoral zeal. My dear Brothers and Sisters, upon you and your families I invoke God’s blessings of joy and peace!

Bishop D'Arcy yet again leads the way...

2009-08-20T17:50:00.002+01:00

Fr Jonathan Hill , fellow diocesan and one of the dwindling decent hopes for the future amongst our clergy* ; has informed us on his blog that the wonderful Bishop D'Arcy [yes he of the Notre Dame controversy] has taken a stand regarding the modern negligent positioning of the Tabernacle. Why Bishop D'Arcy was never appointed cardinal says more about the US church than anything else...

http://paterseraphicus.blogspot.com/

* [the recent promotion of new Deans for the diocesan restructuring was not only controversial ; but in my opinion quite depressing - a few adored and respected devoutly orthodox gems truly deserved their positions ; but more than a few eyebrows were raised at certain appointments of clerics who should be..[derogatory detractive comments deleted]

Spiritual Mothers of Priests

2009-08-20T17:39:00.002+01:00

...and while we're at it - Catholic Grande-Dame ; the Blessed Jane M-F of the French Oasis - has started yet another blog ; this time grounded upon the Cardinal Hummes incentive to physically, morally and spiritually support our Priests !
With a score of illustrious females on a par with our adored 'Dona Nobis Pacem' ; we could conquer the world !

http://spiritualmotherspriests.blogspot.com/

Back to the Obamination

2009-08-20T17:31:00.001+01:00

Don't just read what Loz has to say on this issue ; read everything he's written on his blog recently ; This guy should be a leading catholic journalist - NOW!

http://thatthebonesyouhavecrushedmaythrill.blogspot.com/

Just remembered this...

2009-08-20T15:38:00.002+01:00

I'm watching the battle-axe beyond compare - Peggy Mount - in the film 'Sailor Beware'. It reminded me of the glorious episode of the Sweeney where Diana Dors guest starred as the mother from hell - Lily Rix!

Bit of Politics.

2009-08-20T01:38:00.000+01:00

Regettably she failed to become the next Speaker [although I begged her to stand again should the Tories oust John Bercow] ; but it now looks like Ann Widdecombe could be the front-runner to take over from Francis Campbell; and become our next ambassador to The Holy See http://tinyurl.com/nqtumh . The Cameronite Tory hierarchy cannot abide either her popularity among the Conservative heartlands or her conscientious dogmatic idealism ; so they would love to get her out from under their feet - Which is all to our benefit!

Fr Tim Finigan - His Hermeneuticalness - has pricked our consciences regarding our voting habits ; and although being of good canonical rectitude by not promoting any suggestion we either remain within the larger parties and fight for the pro-Life cause from within or join a distinctly pro-Life party ; he has nevertheless informed us of 'Resurgence' http://resurgenceuk.wordpress.com
[formerly the political party - the Pro-Life alliance [which now exists as a campaign group]] Check them out - discern one's options; and think of the potential consequences of your action when you place the X on the ballot paper. Remember we are first and foremost members of the One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church - NOTHING should prevent us from acting accordingly. Here's one of Resurgence's stances:

Hope for the Future

1.1 Our vision and hope is for a United Kingdom and a European Commonwealth built on the twin pillars of a just democracy and a fair market economy. These must be constructed from the bottom up with the consent of the people and a renewal in moral virtue and responsibility.

True democracy must be responsible and based on absolute and unchanging core values which are ethical, such as the sanctity of all human life and the rule of just and reasonable law.

A market economy must not deny any citizen access to the essentials for playing their part in society. A fair market economy will also be inclusive to encompass free enterprise; private, mutual or public ownership; moderated to the extent that State intervention may best secure and serve the best interests and dignity of the individual citizen.

All economic principles, mechanisms and methods are secondary and subject to the development of the human person and the common good.

1.2 The rights, responsibilities and dignity of citizens must be clearly enshrined and understood. Social justice requires of each individual that which is necessary for the common good. The common good of a society cannot be provided for unless each individual/citizen receives all that they need to discharge their social function. In order to promote the common good of humanity these core values must be a shared vision out of which a common agenda can be agreed.

1.3 Our vision for the United Kingdom is formed on the defence of our historical Christian Democracy which is being attacked and undermined by anti-religious forces. It must be raised up and restored to provide a moral example for the renewal of decency, dignity, honesty, integrity and respect for all. This must be acknowledged by the civil/lay Head of State (Monarch), Legislature, Executive and Judiciary. Our aim is a Democracy founded on Christian principles of Peace, Truth, Justice and Freedom.

1.4 In the words of John Paul II, on the rededication of Europe at the Shrine of Our Lady of Europe in Gibraltar:

Through the Church’s presence since ancient times the message of the Gospel has contributed to the very formation of the culture and consciousness of the various European nations. Christianity is not just part of European culture; it is the spiritual ‘form’ of European man’s approach to the basic and universal questions. It is appropriate that there should be a shrine which will help Europe to recall its Christian heritage and inspire all who come to pray there to build the future of the continent on that solid foundation. Only a strengthening of the spiritual and moral values rooted in “the truth of the gospel” (Gal 2:5) can guarantee that the Europe of the third millennium will be a place of harmony, peace, freedom and respect for life and human dignity.

1.5 Our vision for Europe is formed on the – Europe for Christ! – Charter:-

Europe stands before a crossroads. Europe owes much of its culture to the Gospel lived by Christians – solidarity and human rights, universities, hospitals and cathedrals. Today, however, we risk betraying the soul of Europe. A dictatorship of relativism and a culture of death are omnipresent. Christians are increasingly discriminated against and watch a political tendency in which a humanism inspired by the Gospel is ever increasingly banned into the private sphere.

And yet we have also understood that when God is not our Father, that we are no longer brothers and sisters! For this reason it is important for the future of this continent that we base our culture again on Christ. We seek a Europe in which freedom of religion and conscience is respected, a young and dynamic Europe, one that is a sign of hope for the world.

For this we pray and work

####################################################################

Marriage Care's Terry Prendergast has been up to his nefariously unethical tricks again ; only a month after he was dismissing the nuclear family [a la ekklesia] More can be read at the links below ; but I could only fairly comment if I read more - although many of our catholic lady-bloggers out there have been banging-on about sex education in our catholic schools since the blogosphere started - maybe it should all be collated and sent off to the Holy See before January's ad limina?

Catholic Action UK http://catholicactionuk.blogspot.com/2009/08/marriage-care-caught-out-again.html
The Muniment Room http://ttonys-blog.blogspot.com/
& The Sensible Bond http://thesensiblebond.blogspot.com/2009/08/marriage-careless-and-complacency-care.html

####################################################################

The Guardian reports on Tony Blair doing 'the God thing' ; giving a speech at Holy Trinity, Brompton ; you should all by now know what I think of the gentleman concerned ; but the link's here anyway. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/aug/19/tony-blair-religion-christian

####################################################################

Now : Regarding the whole US 'health-care' issue :

a] I'm an old-fashioned 'leftie' - not a communist, nor a trotskyite, nor a Nu-Labour supporter, nor a supporter of the socialism rightly condemned by Their Holinesses Pius IX, X & XI ; but one who supports Christian social democracy ; [akin to the teachings within the magisterial social teaching of Holy Mother Church , the Gospels and the Corporal and Spiritual works of Mercy ; and the private-property promoting distributism of Belloc and GKC ] - but given that all these names have now been usurped by groups which are far from Christian, social or democratic - I have very little choice but to call myself either a 'leftie' or a catholic socialist [with a whole barrage of conditionals].
b] From my perspective the very notion of an absence of Universal Health Coverage within a society is an abomination ! It contravenes the Judaic laws of Noah [mandatory and axiomatic from natural law for any community] and is in utter contrariety to the commands of Our Lord and Saviour to Love our neighbour. The very notion of someone with an inability to pay being deprived of medical care is an obscenity - and for a tax-paying nation to be refused adequate healthcare for all is technically a form of judicial murder-by-omission. It is a gross dereliction of duty and abrogation of responsibility to protect and serve the society within the government's remit.
c] In regards to his political life ; I consider Barack Obama to be a monster - He is a man who has promoted and legally accelerated the culture of death to the degree of systemic genocide. I will not give detailed accounts on his wallowing in the blood of the unborn - but it is readily available for all to read elsewhere.
d] It is regrettable ; but too many Catholics within the US have fallen into two categories within the political sphere.
[i] 'Left' - willing to compromise and jeopardise , or utterly repudiate; the mandatory, obligatory pro-Life stance demanded from every Catholic ; in order to promote an ostensibly more just and equitable society. An obscenely deluded recourse ; a reprehensible collaboration with evil.
[ii] 'Right' - Where monopolist , corporate , capitalist, dehumanising and disenfranchising violations against the state's duty towards implementing the collective corporal works of mercy [which cannot be exercised by the individual]; are promoted through a 'low taxes:small government' agenda ; and Catholics - conducive to the right's 'pro-family values', and ostensibly 'pro-life' principles ; delude themselves into believing that a few congruent ethical stances validate the whole package. They do not - and ultimately far too many consider themselves republican first at the expense of their catholicism ; or worse - incorrectly presume that catholic political and social teaching conforms to this right-wing agenda.

e] Because of these phenomena we're left in a terrible situation :
[i] the left are willing to 'sell out' their Pro-Life principles for the provisions of Universal Health Care ; which will of course , in an Obama tenure, mean an extension of state-funded abortions ; irrespective of the diabolical duplicity and mendacity of the Obama camp that this will not occur [ h/t to Luke Coppen for this link to the Catholic Key Blog
http://catholickey.blogspot.com/2009/08/obama-lies-about-abortion-coverage-at.html ]

[ii] the 'Right' have been deluded/indoctrinated into believing over the decades that the Welfare State , and consequently Universal Health Care provisions, are morally repugnant to the point of being 'anti-Catholic' ; as state coercion to provide care and support "promotes indolence, introduces inhumane social engineering ,denies personal charity and is a poor and ineffective means of enforcing society to act like a collective of benevolent individuals" ; thus although the anti-Life position of the Obama propositions may remain the main bone of contention ; the very notion of universal health care is seen as wrong !

The 'Left' [and one need only refer to Catherine Pepinster's despicable editorial in last week's Tablet] are willng to allow the culture of death to thrive if Universal Health Care is the result.
The 'Right' don't only oppose the culture of death ; they also oppose the very concept of Universal Health Care in itself !

f] Now I'm far from a friend or supporter of the US National Conference of Bishops ; but the position they've been forced into has been caused by pressure from the Right and Left - and thus they're compelled to for once in their life - promote the Authentic Catholic Position - Universal Health Care without any conspiracy or compromise with the Culture of Death.
This is something the Obama administration cannot and will not provide - BUT - if Catholics actually took a stand [when nearly 20% of all medical care is provided by catholic institutions] and cast aside their anti-catholic political contaminations of either exteme political persuasion ; something could be done to take the issues out of Obama's hands and into the public domain. Alas for US Catholicism - this will not happen - self-interest and political ideology has poisoned the well.
Is Obama's health care plan viable ? Of course not - it's fomented by those willing to sacrifice human life for any political self-advancement - it's intrinsically and extrinsically evil in its intended furtherance of the Culture of death via abortion and Euthanasia. It is far too high a price to pay - even if a few million had their lives saved or extended through this healthcare provision - the price of paying for even a single murder of an unborn child is too much - and we risk our very souls at contemplating such a collaboration with evil.
Is the 'Right's' opposition to it pure and unsullied ? No - while they maintain this is a Life-issue; when it comes to the underlying position - it's the very notion of a covert 'Commie' welfare state which they loathe - They're ignorantly oblivious to the core of catholic teaching that we are obliged to care for our neighbour at all levels - a a personal, community and national level.
Universal Health Care is a Catholic principle - but they'd rather choke on their own vitriol than ever concede the point or ever contemplate that their version of Catholicism in this regard is far from that within the Gospels.

Repost : Eduardo Verastegui - Movies for Life

2009-08-20T01:20:00.003+01:00

Ignatius Insight Blog has details of the San Francisco 'Movies for Life' Awards.
I didn't think much of the winners to be honest ; but see for yourself here :
http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2008/03/watch-the-winni.html

Thought it appropriate for me to re-post this :

Cardinal Justin Rigali, archbishop of Philadelphia, said the film, released today [October 2007] in the United States, "has a message that is so connected to life: to the problems of life, the challenges of life, the value of life." The cardinal wrote to his fellow bishops encouraging them to host advanced screenings of "Bella" with the hope of spreading the film's message.

The film won the 2006 People's Choice Award at the Toronto Film Festival.

"Bella" is a story about a young pregnant woman who loses her job, and a man who is unable to recover from a tragic accident in his past. Their friendship changes their lives and brings new hope to both.

The film features actors Eduardo Verástegui, Tammy Blanchard, Manual Pérez and Ali Landry.

The Beauty Within....

Verástegui, a teen heartthrob during his years as a professional musician supermodel and actor, once voted the most beautiful man in the world ; is now known as a Catholic role model. After a spiritual conversion that brought him back to Catholicism, he is now an outspoken defender of the right to life, chastity and his faith. This video will bring you to tears...

Update: H2O news talks to EV [h/t Luke Coppen] http://www.catholicreview.org/subpages/RomeVideo.aspx

Repost : St Thomas Aquinas on seeking the grace for a devout life...

2009-08-20T01:16:00.000+01:00

Grant me, O merciful God, to desire eagerly, to investigate prudently, to
acknowledge sincerely, and to fulfill perfectly those things that are pleasing
to You, to the praise and glory of Your Holy Name.

Do You, my God, order my life; and grant that I may know what you would have me do; and give me to fulfill it as is fitting and profitable to my soul.

Grant me, O Lord my God, the grace not to fall either in prosperity or
adversity, that I be not unduly lifted up by the one, nor unduly cast down by
the other. Let me neither rejoice nor grieve at anytime, save in what leads
to You or leads away from You. Let me not desire to please anyone, nor fear
to displease anyone except You.

Let all things that pass away seem vile in my eyes, and let all things that are
eternal be dear to me. Let me tire of that joy which is without You, neither
permit me to desire anything that is outside You. Let me find joy in the labour
that is for You; and let all repose that is without You be tiresome to me.

Give me, my God, the grace to direct my heart towards You, and to grieve
continuously at my failures, together with a firm purpose of amendment.

O Lord my God, make me obedient without dispute, poor without despondency,
chaste without stain, patient without complaint, humble without pretence,
cheerful without indulging the senses, serious without being morose, active without
recklessness, fearful of You without despair, truthful without
double-dealing, devoted to good works without presumption, ready to correct my
neighbor without arrogance, and to edify him by word and example, without
hypocrisy.

Give me, Lord God, a watchful heart which shall not be distracted from You by
vain thoughts; give me a generous heart which shall not be drawn downward by any
unworthy affection; give me an upright heart which shall not be led astray by any
perverse intention; give me a stout heart which shall not be crushed by any adversity; give me a free heart which shall not be claimed as its own by any
unregulated affection.

Bestow upon me, O Lord my God, an understanding that knows You, diligence in
seeking You, wisdom in finding You, a way of life that is pleasing to You,
perseverance that faithfully waits for You, and confidence that I shall embrace
You at the last.
Grant that I may be chastised here by penance,
that I may make good use of Your gifts in this life by Your grace,
and that I may partake of Your joys in the glory of heaven:
Who lives and reigns; world without end.
Amen.

Ella Fitzgerald sings 'Love for Sale'

2009-08-19T23:33:00.002+01:00

Cole Porter gets me through stacking the fish shelves each morning - if ASDA FM is on loud enough I can belt the songs out without being detected ; otherwise I'm singing them to full orchestra in my head.... My Uncle Tom died last week - a great man without an enemy in the world who lived but a stone's throw from my house and stood by the gate every day with a smile , ready for a chat with anyone who passed by - losing his presence is like being exiled from a part of reality .
His sister 'My Auntie Madge' ; dead for many years - was a Jazz Singer with the Joe Loss orchestra ; and at her best she could have given Ella a run for her money....

A re-post : Just to remember...

2009-08-17T02:17:00.003+01:00

A dismal Tuesday one November an eternity ago ; with "rains that might put out the sun, and rid the sky of stars"{GKC}...

Drenched , trudging through London: shoes squelching, hair dripping; disconsolate and oblivious to the world around me ; I was lost in more ways than one.
My Partner was suffering from severe post-natal depression ; she had recently miscarried.

I had lost my promotion and was falsely-accused of theft. Eviction loomed, an ex-landlord had stolen most of my belongings, I'd been trainfare-dodging to reach university ; and a vindictive anti-catholic lecturer was ensuring I would never attain my degree....and friends ? Well ?

In my despondency, God and I were on far from friendly terms.
The Church was at least dry - the confessional light beckoned.

Patiently enduring my tirade the priest inquired:
"So you think God's ashamed of you?

Or is it you're afraid others think you're a failure?

Listen : A father and son were taking their donkey to market. Along the way a merchant mocks them for not riding it - the father mounts - but some students accuse the father of mistreating his son - the old thriving from the labours of the young - they swap places. Some old men reprimand the 'selfish' son for forcing his father to walk - so both ride the donkey, until another accuses them of animal cruelty. Finally they carry the donkey ! At market the crowd laugh at the foolish pair. The donkey breaks free , falls into the river and drowns....

"Son, you're frightened of your own shadow - God's telling you :"Be not afraid !" why won't you trust Him ? Your child is in heaven watching over you . Go home! Love your wife and children and leave the rest to God; and to hell with anyone else's opinion ! For those who refuse to fear the Lord end up fearing everything and everyone. Don't fall into this trap. Trust in God and Holy Mother Church."

Diana Dors said: "The most terrible thing in the world is for someone to feel unloved";

St Francis de Sales advised: "It is never enough to love someone - that someone has to know they are loved".

When love seems no more than an illusion , if we fail to believe in the truth or worth of our lives ? We die inside.
For the lonely and disenfranchised there is a desperate yearning for recognition and vindication - a clinging to any available source ; whether fleeting , self-harming or irrevocably compromising; any price is worth paying to feel 'somebody' ; to briefly alleviate the pain.

'Compensating' for spiritual loneliness can lead the best of us commit the most terrible acts; and excuse similarly reprehensible actions in others - tyrannical : simply to be acknowledged or 'respected' ; alienating everyone through fear ; or conversely masochistically submissive ; never daring to jeopardise any relationship by potentially offending; thus depriving oneself of any sincerity, authenticity or self-respect...and like all habit-forming drugs ?

>
I am certain this anxiety is the major cause of not only our personal sins and failings, but also the English Church's negligence in its duties and responsibilities ; and thus the emptying of our pews.

Why else should we be failing so miserably ? Unless we're contaminated with a spiritual pride which refuses to believe in the Love of God, and Truth - the Person of Christ - subsisting within His Mystical Body the Church.

Is it possible we have forgotten to let our neighbour know they are loved ? And in the process rarely hear it ourselves, and when we do our pride prevents us from believing it ?

Anxiety, together with an abject fear of antagonism ; and the saddeningly desperate yearning for recognition indicates how lonely, scared and untrusting of God [and our Catholicism] we have become.

Surely above all things the Cross is the absolute symbol of Hope in hopelessness ?

It doesn't have to be this way....

Think Scientists are truly Objective ?

2009-06-07T13:48:00.000+01:00

...More things in Heaven & Earth ?

2009-06-07T13:40:00.002+01:00

"Connections" by James Burke - Episode One: ' The Trigger Effect '

2009-06-07T13:34:00.001+01:00

Abortion & euthanasia

2009-05-28T08:07:00.003+01:00

IT IS ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL TO READ AND REVISE pgs 208-225 within the Tyler & Reid
religious Studies textbook:

When answering an abortion question one has to understand that this is a issue which relies on :

a] a notion of rights , especially for the mother [p215] ; secondly the utilitarian notion of 'rights for the unborn' which seem more like justifications to abort the foetus that could potentially live a life including pain and disability, have a relatively 'poor quality of life' or is unwanted.
b] the religious notion of the Sanctity of Life, of Life as a gift given by a Loving Creator God and the rights of the foetus as such [p215]
c] the notion of personhood - and the legislation that follows from this within the revised mixed strategy with the inclusion of the potentiality considerations. remember in the US an embryo/foetus is considered a human being but not a human person in order to permit abortion but also to charge any third party who caused an unwanted miscarriage with a criminal offence . Definitions [p209]
d] the moral worth and dignity of the foetus :

This last issue will be the main structure of any answer: You must mention the developmental stages ; e.g. the legal limit of 14 days for embryonic experimentation , the 24 weeks legal limit for reasons other than significant medical/psychological harm to the mother [which permits abortion up to birth], implantation, the development of the primitive streak , the neural groove [where the developing brain connects to the developing spinal cord [17 days] ] , resemblance [10-12wks], autonomous reactivity [12-16wks] the quickening, the variance and movable nature of viability with scientific advancement, and birth.

Remember the five main ideological strands:

Conservative: [Religious] [The roman catholic response provides the best definition of this stance]
[Secular] in that as it is impossible to determine where a group of cells becomes a human being/person ; therefore all moral considerations must treat the embryo foetus as a human being from conception.

[The conservative view has to overcome the difficulty of the significant observable difference between a fertilised ovum and a newborn baby ; especially considering 32% of embryos do not implant; and 20 % of developing foetuses do not survive to full term]

Extreme liberal [radical feminist] : a reverse of the conservative secular argument ; that as it is impossible to determine where the mother's tissue becomes an independent entity and human being ; the embryo/foetus MUST be considered as nothing more than tissue of the mother until birth and the cutting of the umbilical cord. Even if it is deemed a human being or person , this is an irrelevance as the rights of the mother over that part of herself countermand any rights of the foetus.

[the extreme liberal view has obvious difficulties in that to most people a late-term foetus is far from a a piece of human tissue as innocuous as a kidney or liver, and abortion cannot be considered as morally irrelevant as having a haircut as the extreme liberal would imply - there are also the issues of pregnancy through rape [the woman should have little psychological concern that she's carrying a rapist's child - it is merely a piece of tissue; nor should there be much anguish at miscarriage [it is not the loss of a child] - but there is a major crucial problem inherant within this stance : that of surrogacy - as one woman provides the fertilised ovum , and another sustains and grows the foetus - to whom does the foetus belong ? For the extreme liberal this brings great difficulties.

Moderate Liberal :

a] Animalistic - The embryo and foetus should correspond to whatever one deems as an appropriate ethical stance regarding the dignity and worth of higher animals.

b] The Mixed Theory: This is the major stance [combined with the notion of personhood] which is adopted within western societies. It considers both the secular conservative and extreme liberal indeterminacy [no absolute cut-off point where one can say a foetus becomes a human being] position as specious and unworkable.
There have to be limits where abortion is permissible [usually for any reason ; as the destruction of a non-human is innocuous] until a certain cut-off point where only medical/psychological harm to the mother may justify abortion [this is predominantly legislated at viability]. Thus at early term pregnancy abortion for any reason is permissible , at late term one requires a serious reason, and there is a fuzzy region mid-term where there is an openness for debate on the issue.

The mixed strategy , in attempting to accomodate liberal and conservative terms , sides strongly with the extreme liberal view in regards to the moral insignificance of the embryo and early term foetus - it is merely a matter of a time limit for abortion - even justifications as potentially morally reprehensible as wilful pregnancy/abortion for cosmetic [clearing of skin] or increasing sexual libido reasons are deemed as morally irrelevant ; providing the abortion occurs within an early timescale.

In order to accommodate the potential difficulties with justifying late-term abortions ; mixed strategy approaches became even more sided with the extreme liberal view by introducing the 'parasitical principle' in that in order for the foetus to survive within the womb it requires oxygen , nutrients, warmth and protection from the mother ; and the mother cannot be expected to be enforced into this position of providing for the dependant foetus. [Ref Judith Jarvis Thompson's Violinist analogy and the justifications within US Law in Roe vs Wade]

c] Potentiality - this position seeks to limit the 'moral irrelevance' factor within the mixed strategy by declaring that the fertilised ovum,embryo and foetus are unique entities worthy of degrees of respect as such ; therefore abortion for any reason is morally repugnant ; and only a serious reason would make it justifiable.

Biblical passages and statements against abortion.

When my bones were being formed, carefully put together in my mother's womb, when I was growing there in secret, you knew that I was there -you saw me before I was born. The days allotted to me had all been recorded in your book, before any of them ever began. Psalms 139:15-16

Before I was born, the LORD chose me and appointed me to be his servant. Isaiah 49:1

"Listen to me, O house of Jacob, all you who remain of the house of Israel, you whom I have upheld since you were conceived."
Isaiah 46:3

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
Jeremiah 1:5

You shall not kill by abortion the fruit of the womb.
Didache (an early Christian document c100AD)

"From the time that the ovum is fertilised a new life is begun which is neither that of the father or the mother. It is the life of a new human being with its own growth. It would never become human if it were not human already"
Document on Procured Abortion (1974), Roman Catholic Church

"Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception; abortion and infanticide are the most abominable of crimes"
Statement from the Roman Catholic Church

'If you do make a mistake don't destroy the life ... because also to that child God says, "I have called you by your name, I have carved you in the palm of my hand: you are mine"'
Mother Teresa

'Ever noticed that those who support abortion all happen to have been born ?'
Ronald Reagan

The AQA book provides a reasonably good set of resources for different religious considerations of Abortion ; ensure you know a couple of religions inside-out ; but I'd recommend you learn the Roman Catholic position plus another you feel most familiar with.
ADVICE : Remember that although there are many social concerns ; you're arguing about the ethical positions addressing abortion. Using justifications like 'making abortion illegal would be wrong as it would lead to backstreet abortions' are a concern , but not one which addresses the rights and wrongs of abortion itself ; especially in regard to the moral worth and dignity of the foetus. If you wish to argue that the Rights of the mother outweigh all other considerations [parasitical principle , subsequent duty of care etc] be sure that you are able to counter all the opposing positions. If you wish to argue against abortion from a conservative position , you must adress every opposing viewpoint and have valid, cogent responses to each ; especially in regard to an early term embryo who does not resemble a human being or possess the majority of human physical attributes or faculties ; you may have to argue from the point of 'what it will become without direct intervention to prevent it becoming that developed human being' - that from point zero it is a potential human being like you or I.

You could be asked to apply something/ everything you've learned in the abortion arguments to one specific issue - embryonic research or foetal euthanasia or the notion of personhood or religious rights to life - DON'T PANIC ! You have all the necessary provisional material to answer the question ; you merely just have to change the emphasis of those arguments accordingly to ensure they directly answer the question.

Euthanasia :
It's unlikely that you'll get a euthanasia question on its own [although IT IS possible] ; but it's strongly recommended that you revise every aspect of it in case one specific aspect comes up as a secondary aspect of a question.

Although you must use the AQA arguments pro and con [very weak - using these on their own won't provide a good grade] ; it is highly recommended that you include the extra Tyler & Reid arguments [220 onwards] & the notion of palliative care and the hospice movement.

In order to gain extra points I strongly advise that you use the James Rachels arguments to argue the potential dangers with merely accepting passive over active euthanasia.
1. As active euthanasia immediately stops pain and suffering ; and passive allows a further short-term period of pain and suffering - if the justification for passive euthanasia is to prevent pain and suffering ; surely active is better ?
2. We are legally allowed to withdraw treatment from any newborn Downs syndrome babies with duodenal atresia [twisted bowel] ; whereas a non-Downs baby must undergo minor surgery to save their lives. As we are allowing the Downs baby to die for no other reason than because they have Downs , this leads to two consequences:
either a] we can kill/allow to die all Downs children ; or b] All Downs babies should and must be treated.
3. Two brothers wish their nephew to die : If one brother drowned him in the bath , or in another scenario the other brother saw the child slip in the bath, bang their head and drown without rescuing him . What is the ultimate ethical difference if both consequences result in the death of the child ?

[THE ANSWER TO 3 IS KNOWN AS THE 'in absentia corollary'. In the first case the child would not be dead ; in the second he would have died anyway; only if there was a duty of care could there be deemed any legal cupability; moral culpability is of course very different]

4. Allowing to die vs. Direct intervention to end life. When a doctor withdraws treatment are we fooling ourselves that the doctor is not making a direct action to end life ? If there is a duty of care, and a doctor abrogates that responsibility; is this not a direct act of omission ? The doctor is actually doing something in refusing to provide further treatment. [rather than one of commission which active euthanasia requires].

ADVICE : Remember this is a very sensitive subject and writing in any extreme way supporting either a strong pro or contra position for or against euthanasia without due concern will make you seem callous and heartless ; denying either a person's rights to 'die with dignity or live with dignity'- and antagonising an examiner will lose you points . Read all the arguments inside and out; and look out for fallacies appealing to either sentiment or the removal of duty/responsibility of care in order to accommodate utilitarian notions of increasing pleasure/eliminating pain, or those which introduce notions of personhood - especially for those in PVS or suffering dementia/alzheimer's. Yet again you have to give every side a voice and counter each one ; even with those arguments with which you might possibly agree. Remember too the hospice movement and palliative care ; but remember the difficulties in arguing against personal autonomy [J S MILL] for those who wish to die and want someone else to kill them in assisted suicide. The AQA book is adequately proficient in explaining most religious approaches to euthanasia , but if you wish to mention the Roman catholic position - it is better that you use the Taylor and Reid [for instance DON'T use the Hans Kung quote , as most catholics consider hans kung to be very far from a real catholic - if you get a catholic examiner they'd go ballistic!]
remember too that you're being placed in a position where you'll be expected to "SHOW OFF YOUR KNOWLEDGE" - if you can remember a few different viewpoints from different religions - use them !

utilitarianism

2009-05-27T07:20:00.002+01:00

Utilitarianism is an ethical system which pre-supposes we are have some degree of freedom and responsibility for our actions. [i.e. it is not hard determinist]
It is non-relativist in that - although not absolutist - one is obliged to perform ‘right’ action ; one has a duty to perform those acts which promote greater utility.
Utility may be defined as that which is useful, beneficial , increases pleasure or happiness, diminishes pain or suffering.
Unlike deontological forms of ethics , Utilitarianism is teleological and consequentialist ; in that it is concerned solely with the justification/moral worth of an act by its ends and consequences ; not its means, motives or intentions.

At the dawn of the Industrial revolution, and post the American and French revolutions, [where social injustice, inequality and the rights of the majority became significant social and political concerns ] ;
Jeremy Bentham concluded; and subsequently adopted the principle that:

“Right actions are those which produce the greatest pleasures for those affected by their consequences ; wrong actions are those which do not.”

In order to assess and determine a standard for judging personal and private action [it‘s rightness dependant upon its ‘Utility‘ or usefulness ] ; Bentham introduced the hedonic calculus to calculate the most pleasurable and least painful action :
The action’s :
a] intensity
b] duration
c] certainty
d] propinquity [nearness] vs. its remoteness.
e] fecundity [the chances of there being further pleasures]
f] purity [the chances of there being less further pain]
g] extent

With this process one could be able to ascertain right action by quantifying happiness.
Yet within this system lie two major difficulties:
a] The inability to determine or predict one or more of the factors within the hedonic calculus.
b] a danger of narcissistic self-gratification and indulgence ; which John Stuart Mill considered a ‘wallowing in lower pleasures’.
Thus Mill introduced the principle that utilitarianism’s primary moral concern should be towards the quality rather than quantity of the act ; and should aspire to the higher-order goods such as art, culture and intellectual/social improvement.
Mill also considered that personal autonomy , when it affected solely the private individual and had no influence on society ; was not within any remit for the social majority to either influence or legislate against. The harm principle dictates that the majority may only act against the will of the individual if it is to protect and prevent harm to others.

Utilitarianism’s strengths include its consideration for that which actually affects others - the consequences of an action ; where the intention and motive may be irrelevant or ambivalent .
It also takes into consideration that circumstances change and there must consequently be an alteration within the ethical judgment and determination. There is no [potentially cruel and unjust] inflexible categorical imperative.
Utilitarianism is a communal ethical system where the benefits to society become paramount.
What is important is human well-being and their happiness here-and-now ; not in some future metaphysical and possibly non-existent ‘Heaven’. The greatest good for the greatest number is an obviously good ideal and needs no reliance upon religion or legal system to validate it.
The principle promotes a democratic voting system wherein the majority [which includes the weak, poor, dispossessed and disenfranchised] have a voice in the decision making rather than some influential minority [e.g. church or aristocracy].
Utilitarianism’s fundamental weakness is that it is too simplistic in nature ; giving no consideration to either means or motive .
It is also always predictive in nature ; the consequences of an action being indeterminate ; even though experience may provide some guidance ; there is no guarantee that the consequences will correspond to the intention towards them.
There is also no guarantee that the wishes of the majority are right.
There is also the difficulty in that as utilitarianism insists that it is solely the consequences of an action which provide ethical worth ; potentially any action , providing it brings about beneficial consequences ; can be justified.
There is also no credit given towards that which human beings generally naturally judge a person’s character : their motive and intention behind the action.
Utilitarianism comes directly into conflict with concepts of universal human rights and justice as there is no inherent 'right or wrong', actions have only instrumental value, and motives towards a consequence are neither 'good nor bad' merely morally neutral ; if people are required to be used as means to an end to produce greater utility - that action is justified - the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
It also makes no allowance for human relationships and requires that one should adopt a clinical, cold and possibly callous assessment of a situation - any appeal to sentimentality, empathy or interpersonal relationships must be deemed an irrelevant obstruction to producing the utmost utility.
It also has a highly simplistic notion in that happiness can be equated with pleasure ; when human experience, history and cultural traditions reveal that self-sacrifice and heroism are highly admired.
Is not happiness - an abstract subjective concept - immeasurable ?

Because there were major criticisms and concerns with Bentham's 'Act' Utilitarianism; Rule utilitarianism was developed by Mill to counter the more self-centred aspects of Act's overly pragmatic flexibility towards one's own whims and desires.
For rule utilitarians, the correctness of a rule is determined by the amount of good it brings about when followed. In contrast, act utilitarians judge actions in terms of the goodness of their consequences without reference to rules of action. It stresses the greater utility of following a given rule in general, arguing that the practice of following some rule in all instances will have better consequences overall than allowing exceptions to be made in individual instances, even if better consequences can be demonstrated in those instances.Rule utilitarianism deems that people are happier if their society follows rules to guarantee people know what types of behaviour they can expect from others in given situations. Therefore utilitarians can justify a system that keeps to the rules unless there is a strong reason for breaking them.
A major criticism must therefore be that adhering to rules which are axiomatically lacking in promoting utility in a specific circumstance, irrespective of the collective benefits; cannot be considered as right action within that situation for the individual ; and to make any attempt to resolve or remedy that lack of utility would resort to a return to a personaist , subjective 'act' utilitarianism ; which contravenes the overriding principle inherant within rule utilitarianism that the needs of the many outweigh any needs of the few; or one.
This imbalance between the precedent given towards majority interest and the ignoring of minority concerns led to a restructuring of utilitarianism to accommodate and reconcile this conflict.
Preference utilitarianism , whose main proponent is Peter Singer ; insists that any severe detriment to the minority within rule utilitarianism e.g. the justification of slavery , or the execution of an innocent in order to prevent a riot and further death ; must be remedied by a compromise between all parties to a 'best preference satisfaction' where rather than the the best-possible pleasure for one party , a solution is found in which the possible optimal preference for happiness is achieved for all parties.

There are various types of questions you may get asked:

* You may get asked to explain Bentham's Hedonic Calculus or Mill's Utilitarianism
* You may be required to evaluate the theory or compare it to another theory.
* You may be asked to apply Utilitarianism to one of the issues studied.

The following are AS exam questions written by OCR:

(a) Describe and explain the main principles of Utilitarianism. [33]

(b) ‘Utilitarianism has nothing at all in common with religious ethics’. Discuss. [17]

(a) Explain a Utilitarian approach to issues raised by fertility treatment. [33]

(b) ‘A Utilitarian approach to issues raised by fertility treatment leads to wrong moral choices.’ [17]

(a) Explain the main differences between Act and Rule Utilitarianism. [33]

(b) To what extent is Utilitarianism a useful method of making decisions about euthanasia? [17]

This AS question is from January 2005:

(a) Explain how Utilitarianism might be applied to embryo research. [33]

(b) To what extent can embryo research be justified? [17]

This question is from June 2005:

(a) Explain the main differences between Utilitarianism and the ethics of Kant. [33]

(b) 'Happiness is the most important consideration in ethics.' Discuss. [17]

This A2 question is from June 2005:

Compare and contrast Utilitarianism with the ethics of the religion you have studied. [45]

This AS question is from January 2006:

(a) Explain how Bentham's version of Utilitarianism can be used to decide on the right course of action. [33]

(b) Evaluate a Utilitarian approach to abortion. [17]

This is an AS question from June 2006:

(a) Describe the main strengths and weaknesses of Utilitarianism. [33]

(b) ‘Utilitarianism is a good approach to genetic engineering.’ Discuss. [17]

This A2 exam question is from June 2006:

'Utilitarianism is the best approach to environmental issues.' Discuss. [45]

This AS question came up in January 2007:

(a) Explain the main differences between Act and Rule Utilitarianism. [33

(b) ‘Rule Utilitarianism ignores consequences.’ Discuss. [17]

These questions are both from June 2007:

(a) Explain the main strengths of Mill’s version of Utilitarianism. [33]

(b) ‘Mill’s Utilitarianism has no serious weaknesses.’ Discuss. [17]

(a) Explain how Utilitarianism might be applied to the issues surrounding the right to a child. [33]

(b) ‘Utilitarianism can lead to wrong moral decisions.’ Discuss. [17]

VISIT THIS WEBSITE !!! http://www.rsrevision.com/diagrams/a_level_exams.html

When dealing with the religious aspects of Utilitarianism one must address its inherant conflicting ideals with the major religions which generally adhere to deontological 'natural law' ethical systems, the commands and statutes by religious founders, or even 'virtue ethics'.
Yet many progressive or reformed versions of the major faiths have a predilection towards a relaxation of the ethical inflexibility to a more situationist approach.
Fletcher's 'situationist ethics' is prone towards adopting a pragmatism and relativism which veers towards corresponding with preference utilitarianism ; where rather than maintaining a rigid legalistic system of ethics ; a flexibility towards compromise and accommodation for the benefits of the entire faith community may be considered as the best option e.g. contemporary liberal christian groups allowing remarriage for the divorced , or the blessing of same-sex unions.
Although utilitarianism is antagonistic to major religions in that one's moral authenticity , worth and dignity usually corresponds with a good motive and intention and an idealised sense of duty ; there are some religious groups which enforce the major ethical concerns are those which sustain, support and promote their religious community - and for these the application of a utilitarian ethical system may be collectively beneficial e.g. within reformed liberal judaism, sufism, reformed progressive christianity and community-based faith structures e.g. Quakers[Society of Friends] ; Baptist chapters , Jehovah's witnesses etc. The notion of the pleasure/pain principles could very easily be accommodated into certain varieties of Buddhism; where the renunciation of self-interest for the sake of the collective could be achieved through a utilitarian agenda structure where only the ultimate objective would differ; but not the means of achieving it.