Dossier: National Justice and Peace Network

The National Justice and Peace Network was founded in 1978. It has a presence in most dioceses, campaigning on the usual 'justice and peace' themes and acting as an umbrella organisation for like-minded Catholic groups. It is highly integrated into the institutional church, though naturally its leaders would always like more prominence and more money. Looking at diocesan websites it is hard to see whether the diocesan 'Justice and Peace' set-up is a department of the diocesan bureaucracy or a branch of NJPN.

The Tablet recently (7/02/09) ran a story about NJPN which took its start from a significant cut in funding from CAFOD. Although very sympathetic to the cause, The Tablet was unable to point to any achievements of the NJPN, and painted a picture of a skeleton staff presiding over a moribund organisation, incapable of attracting younger activists. The cut in funding (CAFOD was paying half the salaries of the Administrator and the Webmaster, but will no longer do so) places a question mark over the entire organisation.

Most of the network of 'justice and peace' activism which has so successfully colonised the church's bureaucracy is dying. The attitudes which characterise it are variations on the painfully outdated 1970s-era notion that the Church must concern herself exclusively with mundane, rather than spiritual matters, and that in doing so she should consult, not her own traditions, but the ideas of modern sociology and left-wing politics, regardless of how hostile to Christianity those ideas might be. Attempts to warm this over with Political Correctness (1980s era) and concern for the environment (1990s era) do not succeed in creating a more palatable offering. Nowhere is there more than lip service either to the Church's spiritual goals or the Church's insights into the problems of material poverty and justice. This is an organisation which is feeding off the good will of Catholics, and the resources of the Church, for a set of goals to which the Church's teaching is simply irrelevant.

In common with its member organisations and other 'justice and peace' and Christian environmentalist groups a key indication of NJPN's problem is its total failure to recognise abortion and the breakdown of the family as issues which come within its remit. This is particularly bizarre since homelessness is a big issue for the NJPN: it is not prepared to look the most obvious cause of homelessness, family breakdown, in the face. And yet abortion and the family are issue upon which the Church actually has something to say which is not being said by the secular liberal establishment.

On the contrary, when abortion and the family are tackled in a way which go against Church teaching, by parts of this secular establishment, NJPN is at pains not to draw attention to it. In fact, when forced by events to say something about Amnesty International's decision to campaign for abortion (pdf), the NJPN suggests that remaining in the organisation is better than leaving it, a position directly contradicting statements on both from the Vatican and to concerned English bishops (notably Archbishop Smith of Cardiff, who had been a long-term supporter of AI). A link to AI remains on the NJPN website.

Another example is NJPN's promotion of the United Nations 'World Population Day' (in the Summer 2004 Newsletter's Diary). World Population Day is all about promoting contraception ('improving reproductive health services and family planning'): see the UN's site.

The organisations and campaigns NJPN supports include Pax Christi, Progressio, CAFOD, and livesimply, each of which dissents from the Church's teaching and on each of which we have a dossier. They also have web links to Christian Aid (a non-Catholic pro-abortion development agency: see SPUC's charity bulletin); Christian Ecology Link (an interdenomenational group on which we have a dossier), and the National Board of Catholic Women (which is dominated by the militant feminists of Women Word Spirit).

The only Catholic newspaper it links to is The Tablet. And that, in a way, says it all.

There is no need to spend more time on this organisation: it does little and has little to say for itself, but promotes the ideas of a liberal establishment which is fundamentally hostile to the Church and to human life.

Don't let them waste your time; don't let them waste your money; don't let them use your parish or school to propagate their worn-out rubbish.

Read More...

Summary only...

Dossier on Cherie Blair

Cherie Blair’s record on pro-life, pro-family and Catholic issues

There is irrefutable factual evidence or otherwise credible circumstantial evidence that Mrs Blair has:

publicly patronised international and domestic pro-abortion organisations
publicly supported homosexuality
publicly dissented from the Church’s teaching on contraception
implied a denial of the indefectibility of the Church (an infallible truth of the Catholic faith)
implied support for a change in the Church’s teaching against the ordination of women
has attacked the Church’s record on women
engaged in pagan rituals
supported her husband’s anti-life/anti-family government


She has publicly patronised international and domestic pro-abortion organisations

Mrs Blair has given public and direct endorsement of the work to the world’s leading promoter and provider of abortion, the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). In July 2003, Mrs Blair hosted a private reception at 10 Downing Street (the prime minister’s residence) for IPPF’s “Lust for Life” campaign to raise £100,000 for IPPF [Catholic Herald, 1 August 2003]

IPPF endorsed the failed campaign to remove the Holy See from the United Nations: here.

At the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in November 1999, Mrs Blair “visited the exhibition stand of IPPF, Population Concern and Marie Stopes International.” (IPPF annual report, 1999)

At the annual Labour party conference in September 2005, Mrs Blair celebrated the 75th anniversary of the Family Planning Association (fpa), the UK branch of IPPF, helping to cut a special birthday cake. This is when Mrs Blair offered a condom to the cameraman.

FPA endorsed the failed campaign to remove the Holy See from the United Nations, 'See Change'.

Mrs Blair has endorsed CEDAW (the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women), specifically mentioning CEDAW's affirmation of women's so-called 'reproductive rights', which is both a technical term and a euphemism for abortion on demand. The CEDAW convention and the committee which implements it are the vehicles for one of the most radical pro-abortion campaigns ever. On Cherie Blair's website , in the section About this site, Mrs Blair writes: "This website is dedicated to the issues that concern me, to helping improve the position of women throughout the world by sharing information and by safeguarding and promoting human rights. At the heart of the website is the Women of the World section." On a page in the Women of the World section, Mrs Blair says: "The [United Nations] Convention [on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) ... is the only human rights treaty which affirms the reproductive rights of women". The page ends by linking to the CEDAW committee, which is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the CEDAW convention. The CEDAW committee is notorious among pro-lifers for using the CEDAW convention to bully countries into allowing abortion. Most recently, the CEDAW committee issued a report calling upon the UK government to decriminalise abortion in Northern Ireland.Elsewhere on her website, Mrs Blair lists Human Rights Watch as one of the charities she supports. It should be noted that Human Rights Watch is one of the most radically pro-abortion international NGOs (non-governmental organisations).

“Cherie Blair is known as a dissenter. Britain’s first lady, who is herself a human rights lawyer, has views of the Catholic faith — even on matters of life and death such as abortion — that are profoundly at odds with the Church.” [interview by Edward Pentin, “A Dissenter Speaks After Meeting Pope Benedict”, National Catholic Register, May 14-20, 2006 ]


She has publicly supported the militant homosexual agenda

In a lecture to students at Harvard university, Mrs Blair described the US Supreme Court’s striking-down of the Texas law against sodomy as “a model of judicial reasoning”. [Scotland on Sunday, 31 October 2004]

It was reported that Mrs Blair attended the 10th anniversary celebration of Stonewall, the UK’s leading homosexual rights organisation. The celebration featured a performance by Elton John, world-famous for his homosexual lifestyle, who has recently accused the Catholic Church of being responsible for the deaths of AIDS sufferers and said that he would “ban religion completely.” The performance featured homo-erotic dancers dressed as Boy Scouts, in an apparent implied promotion of paedophilia: see here.

The Sunday Times reported that Mrs Blair accepted an invitation to the gay wedding (same-sex civil partnership ceremony) of anti-life MEP Michael Cashman, one of the first such ceremonies conducted in the UK, legalised by her husband’s government [Sunday Times, 4th December 2005]

In a 1998 case before the European Court of Justice, Mrs Blair represented a lesbian who had taken legal action against South-West Trains who had refused to grant travel concessions to her lesbian partner: see here.


She has publicly dissented from the Church’s teaching on contraception

"Women still do not get due respect in the Church which is why, in the opinion of many people, it gets some things wrong like its teaching on contraception." Mrs Blair quoted in the Daily Telegraph, 6 June 2005.

In 2005, Mrs Blair contributed an essay to the book “Why I am still a Catholic?”, a collection of essays from notorious dissenters from Catholic teaching, including notorious homosexuals and persons who have contracted invalid marriages and have therefore been barred from receiving the Sacraments: “Of course, like many Catholics in this country”, she said, “I have doubts about some of the positions taken by the Church as an institution - for example, on contraception or the role of women. But I am not one of those who believes that the only response is to walk away because you have a different viewpoint. I have been taught that you should stay and try to change things.”

In her autobiography, Mrs Blair said her son Leo had been conceived because she have her “contraceptive equipment” with her: see here.


She has implied a denial of the indefectibility of the Church (an infallible truth of the Catholic faith)

“The Church is a pilgrim Church. It has not yet arrived at its destination. It is not perfect.” [Tyburn Lecture: A Catholic Perspective on Human Rights , published in The Tablet, 21st June 2003, pp. 4-7.]

She has implied support for a change in the Church’s teaching against the ordination of women

“[I do] not have a theologically considered view on the question of the ordination of women — ultimately that is a matter for the Holy Father and the magisterium rather than the faithful to decide.” - thereby implying that the Church’s teaching on the subject (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, 1994) is not definitive. [interview by Edward Pentin, “A Dissenter Speaks After Meeting Pope Benedict”, National Catholic Register, May 14-20, 2006]

“It may be that the implications of the radical equality proclaimed in Galatians and Vatican II (and now set forth in the civil law of the European Convention on Human Rights) will in time come to change perceptions on the role of women within the Church.” [Tyburn Lecture: A Catholic Perspective on Human Rights , published in The Tablet, 21st June 2003, pp. 4-7.]


She has attacked the Church’s record on women

“In my pre-Vatican II childhood, women were seen but not heard in the Church.” [Tyburn Lecture: A Catholic Perspective on Human Rights , published in The Tablet, 21st June 2003, pp. 4-7.]


She has engaged in pagan rituals

It is widely reported that Mrs Blair has engaged in new-age pagan rituals (Feng Shui, crystals, re-birthing), under the influence of a former pornographic model. [The Observer, 8 December 2002 ]


She has supported her husband’s anti-life/anti-family government

When asked at a press conference the hypothetical question of whether he and Cherie Blair would have been happy to donate spare embryos generated as a result of fertility treatment, Tony Blair replied: "For the first time in all the press conferences I have done, I am completely stumped for an answer." He then described it as a "very personal question". [Daily Telegraph, 23 November 2000]

Her husband not only led the most anti-life and anti-family government in British history, but himself voted for and otherwise supported abortion, destructive embryo research, euthanasia, contraception, same-sex unions and related evils. See here.

Why is she still being invited to speak at Catholic insitutions? This must stop.

Read More...

Summary only...

Christian Ecology Link: dossier

Christian Ecology Link is a non-denomenational group, so we aren't going to go into detail on its history or structure. It encourages Catholic membership (it has a 'Catholic Team', 'Catholic Resources' etc.), and it is listed as an 'Ecumenical Partner' on the 'livesimply' list of members. The question is whether Catholics can in conscience join, support, or promote this group (as livesimply does: see our dossier on them).

The answer is a resounding No. Catholics, like everyone else, are entitled to their private views about how to save the planet. What they cannot do it promote contraception and abortion, or contribute this promotion, or sit quietly on the sidelines of an organisation which promotes them. But like many ecological groups, CEL regards contraception and abortion not just neutrally, but as essential to the project of saving the world. Not only should contraception be forced on any remaining populations where it is not already widespread, but coercion should be used if necessary - even the forced abortion policy of China gets a favourable mention. All this is promoted on the basis of the tired and superficial arguments put forward by the United Nations and others that there are 'too many people', despite the stubborn way in which the supply of food (and everything else) has more than kept up with strong population growth over the last century, and despite the fact that population growth is slowing. According to their projections, on current trends it will peak in 2050. Not exactly out of control, is it?

CEL publish a daily 'Prayer guide', which gives supporters something to pray about every day ('Useful for assemblies, private prayer and workshops: Share it with your church.'), and these are a few of the delightful things they'd like us to chew over.

Wednesday 11 January 2006.
According to the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), 380 women a minute become pregnant, of whom 190 do not plan to do so, but lack modern contraceptives. According to John Guillebaud, Emeritus Prefessor of Reproductive Health at University College, London, every minute of the day one woman dies through unsafe induced abortion or childbirth, i.e. 600,000 a year. The UNFPA figures quoted above suggest that half are being killed by pregnancies that they would have avoided – if only they had the contraceptives that we take for granted.

But 'unplanned' pregnancies are not necessarily 'unwanted': these statistics are meaningless. Certainly, women die from abortion, but far more from the 'safe', legal kind, than from illegal abortions.

Thursday 12 January 2006.
For the 4^th year in succession the US Administration has withheld funding from UNFPA, the only international agency dedicated to family planning and reproductive healthcare. According to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, experts estimate that the former US contribution to UNFPA, if continued, would each year prevent 2 million unintended pregnancies, nearly 800,000 abortions, 4,700 maternal deaths and 77,000 infant and child deaths. 

This is one of the acts of the Bush administration upon which it can congratulate itself: no funding to bribe or bully men into sterilisations in India; no money for forced abortions in China. But CEL clearly thinks this is a bad thing - basing their reasoning on the claims of the most fanatical abortion-pushing group in the world, the IPPF, that, contrary to all the evidence, increased access to contraception reduces the number of abortions.

Wednesday 25 October 2006.
China's notorious “single child” policy has prevented over 400 million births. The average birth rate is now 1.8 children per couple as compared with 6 per couple before the policy was introduced. Nevertheless, according to Zhaio Baige, vice-minister of the National Population & Family Planning Commission, “the basic fact is that we have over 1.3 billion people in China (increasing to 1.5 billion by 2035) accounting for over 22% of the world's population, while we have only 7% of the world's arable land.” As to population policy, she says: “We are introducing a system in the countryside to encourage people to obey the family policy plan, granting economic rewards rather than punishing people who break the rules.” It combines free contraception services for rural women, with sensitive local economic assistance, such as micro-loans for communities in the remote countryside, which can help them stay on their land and make a living from it. But she admits there are difficulties. “How should we promote proper contraception without offending women's rights? That will be a great challenge to our work.” “Ultimately” she says “the solution to China's environmental problem is closely linked to its population situation. We realise that China's population and environmental concerns are the world's concerns, and we are willing to take responsibility and share our experience of solving the problems with the rest of the world.”

Despite the use of the word 'notorious', China's policy is being presented in a positive light. A little adjustment, perhaps, would be good - but overall it is 'responsible'. But abortion, even when bullying and bribery are used instead of inprisonment and coercion, always harms women.

Wedneday 30th July 2008

According to Professor John Guillebaud, Emeritus Professor Family Planning & Reproductive Health at University College, London, “Family planning could provide more benefits to more people at less cost than any other single ‘technology’ available to the human race.” There are three possible solutions to climate change:

-Better technology. But all known renewable energy sources - wind, waves, tides, solar and biological – have their adverse impacts. They also lack the power density of fossil fuels.
- Reduced consumption. But poor people very reasonably aspire to leave poverty – which can only be done by consuming more, so producing more greenhouse gases.
-Fewer humans doing the consuming. The only remaining solution. Voluntary, accessible contraception is NOT a substitute for reduced consumption assisted by technology. It’s just the much-neglected other side of the same coin.

Yet talk about population within the Church and within aid agencies is largely taboo – “the elephant in the room that we don’t want to talk about.” “Compulsion, whether overt or covert, is wrong. Let’s just ensure that every woman who now wants a modern contraceptive method has easy access to it.”

If contraception is the answer, it must be a stupid question: how to save the planet from an imaginary population crisis.

Other clues to their attitude are to be found in their newsletter, Green Christians. It is no surprise that they have attracted to their fold cradle Catholics who dissent from Humanae Vitae: the Winter 200/01 issue contains an article by one such, Michael O'Gara. O'Gara explained that he first dissented from it because of what he took to be the self-contradictory teaching of Paul VI: no to contraception, yes to periodic abstinence for good reasons. (Clearly he's not a great logician.) It was after this that he became involved in 'Christian' ecologists (see here).

The Spring/Summer 2008 issue treated its readers to an article by Professor John Guillebaud, who rejoices in the most revolting claim to fame (see here):
I decided, over 40 years ago and probably uniquely among doctors anywhere in the world, to specialise in contraception including surgery (our clinic in Oxford has done >39,000 vasectomies to date!) on environmental grounds.

The attitude to the human body, to women, and to unborn life, evidenced by CEL's publications is not only grossly immoral, but it is something they are willing and indeed eager to foist on unwilling people, such as Islamic countries in the developing world. It is wrong for Catholics to be invovled in this organisation, and hypocritical for organisations such as 'livesimply', who use Catholics' donations and the Church's network, to give them support.

Read More...

Summary only...

Dossier: The Archbishop Romero Trust

What have Oscar Romero, CAFOD, and homosexual activists got in common?

'Justice and Peace' groups naturally see the Servant of God Archbishop Romero, perhaps soon to be beatified, as a hero for speaking out against government human-rights abuses. Unfortunately, they focus their own work on getting parishes to buy 'Fair Trade' products while our own goverment is forcing adoption agencies to give children to gay couples, allowing scientists to create human-animal hybrids, and promoting abortion for 12-year-olds.

But that is not enough. The Romero Trust, which has the laudible aim of promoting knowledge and awareness of the life and work of Archbishop Romero, is Chaired by Julian Filochowski, a former CAFOD director and civil partner of gay activist Martin Pendergast: an irony noted by Fr Tim Finnigan. The Mass celebrating their civil union caused a storm; a book edited by Filochowski in honour of the relationship is full of attacks on the Church: see here.

The use of Romero by these militant gay activists gives them opportunities for promoting the gay agenda through the activities of the Romero Trust. This might seem a difficult trick to pull off, but Martin Pendergast tells us himself that a Mass in honour of Romero in 2005 also marked World AIDS Day. Naturally, this is not a day dedicated to suggesting to 'active' homosexuals that they stop their immoral and self-destructive behaviour: it has been so completely taken over by the gay lobby that this year its theme was ending 'HIV prejudice'.

Another of Martin Pendergast's hobbies is the 'gay' Masses on the 1st and 3rd Sundays of each month in the church of Our Lady of the Assumption, Warwick Street: see our dossier on the RCCLGCM. Another dissident group in which he is involved, 'Catholics for AIDS Prevention and Support', is celebrating a 'World AIDS Mass' in this church on 30th November, and this is being promoted by the Diocese of Westminster's Justice and Peace Commission, through their e-bulletin, which also promotes World AIDS Day itself and an event of another dissident group, Pax Christi (their advent service 8th December).

So it's all very chummy. The presence of militant gay activists in the 'Justice and Peace' estblishment fits J&P's 'progressive' image, but hardly its Catholic identity.

What would the saintly Archbishop have thought? The Servant of God, Archbishop Oscar Romero of San Salvador, was well known for his opposition to Marxist-inspired liberation theology. He was assassinated for speaking out against the murders and other abuses being perpetrated by the Salvadorian Government and its allies, in 198o.

It was a highly confused situation. A basically left-wing government was fighting a civil war with Marxist terrorists supported by Cuba; far-right death squads, loosely controlled by elements in the government, were wreaking havoc at the same time. Jimmy Carter, the Democrat US President of the time, supported the government with military aid. Romero was killed by a member of a death-squad, after calling for President Carter to cease this aid. (See Wikipedia.)

The one thing one could comfortably predict about Romero, is that he would find the J&P establishment's idea of action for the worst off pretty unimpressive. Perhaps Filochowski and his friends regard him as a man to be admired, but not emulated. Or perhaps not even admired: just used.

Post scrip: We've had an email from Positive Catholics, aka Catholicss for AIDS Prevention and Support, the dissident homosexual group we write about here. It suggests that there is something innacurate about the post, but we can't see anything in the post which the email contradicts, except the exact dedication of the 2005 Mass we refer to. 

Here is the email. (Don't you love their apostrophe's?) :

My attention has been drawn to an item on your blog. The Mass did not mark Archbishop Romero’s murder, but coincided with both the 25th anniversary of the murder of 4 American religious women in El Salvador in 1980, and the annual commemoration of World AIDS Day. As such it was supported by a range of Catholic organisations, with the £250 collection being sent to the Contrasida AIDS project in San Salvador, directed by Maryknoll Sister, Dr. Mary Virginia Annel, who belonged to the same community as two of the murdered sisters.

It is regrettable that something which calls itself Catholic Action, allegedly committed to promoting truth, seems to rely on incorrect information, mistruth, and personal vendetta’s against fellow Catholics and organisations which it seeks to denigrate or undermine.

Vincent Manning
Chairperson – Catholics for AIDS Prevention & Support

We were relying on 'incorrect information'? Well, that would have to be Martin Pendergast's press release. As if it made any difference, Pendergst tells us, re this Mass: 2005 marks two significant 25th anniversaries in the martyrs' chronicle of the small Central American country of El Salvador. On 24 March 1980, Oscar Romero, Archbishop of San Salvador, was martyred as he celebrated Mass in the chapel of a cancer hospice. - the other being of the four religious women. Anyway, anyone could click on the link we gave to see the full press release.

Read More...

Summary only...

LiveSimply: dossier

'Livesimply', founded in 2006, is the achingly right-on project, constantly promoted by aging trendies in the Church's bureacracy, to replace genuine Catholic social teaching and concern for the worst off (which surely includes the victims of abortion) with a series of platitudes about saving water and recycling. Not that they are very open about being Catholic - this emerges only after considerable searching of the website - but it is the creaking structures of the Bishops' Conference and their friends who supply the lion's share of supporters and finance, and it is the time and resources of Catholic parishes and individuals which they wish to tap.

This is what they say about themselves:

Economic growth that tramples on the rights of the poor is not progress. The accumulation of riches at the expense of people and the environment is not true wealth.
We can choose to live in a way that puts us back in touch with what really matters.We can help create a world where human dignity is respected and people in developing countries have the chance to live their lives to the full. God calls us to live simply, sustainably and in solidarity with people who are poor.

How is this put in practice? The livesimply site directs us to Progressio, which suggests buying local food or 'fair trade' brands, using low energy lightbulbs and turning down the heating, etc. etc.. It is interesting to see that there is nothing here about direct concern for the less fortunate (such as joining the Sisters of Charity soup-run in London, for example), and nothing about the Gospel. It is simply the a series of things which Islington dinner guests would agree would constitute 'doing our bit' for the planet.

Who are they?

The website is coy about who set it up, or even what it is. (A campaign? An organisation? A department of another organisation? How related to the Bishops' Conference of England and Wales?) It emerges, however, that the major force behind it is CAFOD: the text explaining the purpose of 'livesimply' is signed by a CAFOD official; resources packs can be had by emailing a CAFOD address; and CAFOD is providing a bank account ('cheques should be payable to CAFOD'). CAFOD itself tells us of its committment to the project:

In the run-up to the launch of LiveSimply in Advent 2006, CAFOD’s Spirituality team trained 216 individuals to become local leaders to promote the initiative.

CAFOD promotes condoms for the poor, despite being an official agency of the Catholic Church in England and Wales (see our dossier on CAFOD for full details).

A key organiser of the livesimply project has been Fr James O'Keefe, a director of CAFOD, who celebrated the notorious Mass celebrating the civil partnership of Martin Pendergast, the gay activist and former priest, and Julian Filochowski (a former CAFOD director). O'Keefe stepped in when Bishop Crowly of Middlesbrough, was forced not to do it after the event became public: full details here and here.

Another important contributor is Progressio, which, as well as providing the practical tips noted above, hosts the website. The 'www.livesimply.org.uk' address is simply a domain name which covers up the real address, which is http://www.progressio.org.uk/livesimply/AssociatesHome2/92990/livesimply/

The 'livesimply' address has been stuck onto this part of the Progressio website using 'frames', which means that whatever link you go to from there it will say 'www.livesimply.org.uk' in the location bar of your browser, although it is not the 'real' url.

Progressio has been repeatedly exposed as supporting abortion, as well as contraception: see our dossier.

Any organisation can become a 'member' of livesimply for £50 so there are quite a few. It lists the large number of nominally Catholic organisations which regard material help, understood from a strictly left-wing viewpoint, as the only 'Catholic' response to human needs; it also lists some of the more trendy Catholic dioceses, and other groups which seem to have been memerised by the hype.

The dioceses are Hallam, Westminster, Plymouth, East Anglia, Liverpool, Leeds, and Portsmouth.

Dissident groups listed, in addition to CAFOD and Progressio, include Pax Christi, and the National Board of Catholic Women, an agency of the Bishops Conference which has been taken over by the feminists of 'Women Word Spirit', recently expelled from the Catholic Directory for its support for abortion and women's ordination. Listed as an 'ecumenical partner' is Christian Ecology Link, which supports not only contraception but China's forced abortions.

The Distortion of Catholic teaching

Many Catholics who identify with what we might call the 'progressive left' give outstanding witness to their Catholic committment by criticising the left's undermining of the family and support for abortion. After all, these positions are incompatible with a committment to the poor and vulnerable. Such Catholics are, alas, becoming less common as their fellow lefties become increasingly intolerant of pro-life and pro-family views. Accordingly, we encounter the phenomenon of Catholics on the left who will say nothing in support of the family or unborn life, but, to salve their consciences, attempt to present the left's agenda on third-world development and climate change as Catholic, and their support for it as arising from their Catholic beliefs. It is, however, nothing of the kind: this agenda evidently has its origins outside the Church, and its usefulness or otherwise depends on political and economic judgements which are outside the scope of Church teaching. That is not to say it is wrong - perhaps turning down the heating is good idea - but to present it as a 'Catholic position' (or: the position which should be supported by agencies of the bishops' conference, dioceses, parishes and so on) in the place of family and life issues, and indeed spirituality, is a gross distortion of Church teaching.

Not only does the 'livesimply' message distort the message, but it is an attempt to divert attention and resources away from the issues on which the Church has something distinctive to say, in opposition to the assumptions of secular society, on the family, life, and spirituality, towards things about which the Church has nothing distinctive to say: where all she can say is 'we care about the environment too!'

We can do no better than quote from Pope Benedict XVI's encyclicals.

Deus Caritas Est 28:
The Church is ... alive with the love enkindled by the Spirit of Christ. This love does not simply offer people material help, but refreshment and care for their souls, something which often is even more necessary than material support. In the end, the claim that just social structures would make works of charity superfluous masks a materialist conception of man: the mistaken notion that man can live “by bread alone” (Mt4:4; cf. Dt 8:3)—a conviction that demeans man and ultimately disregards all that is specifically human.

Spe Salvi 35:
... our daily efforts in pursuing our own lives and in working for the world's future either tire us or turn into fanaticism, unless we are enlightened by the radiance of the great hope that cannot be destroyed even by small-scale failures or by a breakdown in matters of historic importance. If we cannot hope for more than is effectively attainable at any given time, or more than is promised by political or economic authorities, our lives will soon be without hope. It is important to know that I can always continue to hope, even if in my own life, or the historical period in which I am living, there seems to be nothing left to hope for. Only the great certitude of hope that my own life and history in general, despite all failures, are held firm by the indestructible power of Love, and that this gives them their meaning and importance, only this kind of hope can then give the courage to act and to persevere. Certainly we cannot “build” the Kingdom of God by our own efforts—what we build will always be the kingdom of man with all the limitations proper to our human nature. The Kingdom of God is a gift, and precisely because of this, it is great and beautiful, and constitutes the response to our hope. And we cannot—to use the classical expression—”merit” Heaven through our works. Heaven is always more than we could merit, just as being loved is never something “merited”, but always a gift. However, even when we are fully aware that Heaven far exceeds what we can merit, it will always be true that our behaviour is not indifferent before God and therefore is not indifferent for the unfolding of history. We can open ourselves and the world and allow God to enter: we can open ourselves to truth, to love, to what is good. This is what the saints did, those who, as “God's fellow workers”, contributed to the world's salvation (cf. 1 Cor 3:9; 1 Th 3:2).

What should faithful Catholics do?

Catholic parishes should not be used to spread 'Livesimply' propanda; Catholic organisations should not be members of it; indvidual Catholics should not support it.

If you want to support this kind of thing, support some group like Greenpeace - they promote their ideas without claiming that they are Catholic teaching. No Catholic can in conscience present his private opinions as Catholic teaching, or highjack Catholic organisations to further his personal views.

Best of all, support the 'livechastely' 'promise': see here.

Read More...

Summary only...

Pax Christi UK: dossier

Pax Christi is an international movement made up of autonomous local groups. It was founded in 1945 as an organisation of Catholics in Europe who wanted to promote reconciliation at the end of the Second World War. The UK organisation got going in the late 1950s. In the 1960s, with the notorious Fr Bruce Kent as its chaplain, it campainged against Britain's nuclear deterrent. In 1971 it merged with another Catholic peace group, 'PAX'.

Although it is listed in the 2008 Catholic Directory, and calls itself 'Pax Christi: International Catholic Movement for Peace', it does not actaully describe itself as Catholic. Rather:
Pax Christi, Peace of Christ, is a gospel-based lay-inspired, peacemaking movement. Founded in the Catholic Church, its membership is open to individuals, groups and organisations of all faiths who are in sympathy with its aims and values. It is affiliated to Pax Christi International. (here) - or alternatively Pax Christi is an international Christian peacemaking movement, based on the gospel and inspired by faith. (here)

Pax Christi remains an active part of the anti-nuclear weapons campain (there is a link to the CND on its website), and has also become closely involved with the 'anti-war movement' created by the Iraq war.

Pax Christi's Dissent from Church Teaching

There is very little talk on Pax Christi's excruciatingly badly-designed website about the doctrine of the 'just war', except that it needs to be 'updated'; rather, the central idea of Pax Christi appears to be that all war (and capital punishment) is wrong. Again and again we find this view quoted with approval, although it is not set up as the organisation's official position. The home page includes a power-point presentation entitled 'Peace begins with disarmament'. The Greenham Common women are quoted as saying that 'There has never been a just war' (pdf); a discussion of a Northern Ireland peace campaigner (pdf) reflects that

The whole idea of war, the so-called just war theory, the notion that Christians can arm themselves and kill their enemies and still follow Christ, has come into question in Ireland and in many other parts of the world.
A 2004 Newsletter (pdf) writer tells us that

I take courage from the words of Professor Rotblat who, in 1999, spoke of the "citizens of the world" who no longer perceive war to be a valid option as a route to justice and true peace.

This is all, however, contrary to the constant teaching of the Church, which is that self defence, defence of others, and war (and capital punishment) are in certain situations not only legitimate but on occasion obligatory. There are occasions when injustice can only be effectively opposed by violence, and on those occasions we do not turn our backs on those suffering injustice. The Bible contains many passages in which God endorses war, in the Old Testament; Our Lord does not regard the military profession as intrinsically immoral (Luke 3.14); St Paul reiterates the right of the state to kill (Romans 13.4); and the Catechism of the Catholic Church reiterates the 'Just War' doctrine (2309). Opposing a particular war is naturally legitimate for a Catholic, on the basis of a moral and political judgment, but it is wrong to rule out all war: to do so would be to condemn all the Catholics who have fought in wars, some of whom have been canonised: for example, the crusader king St Louis of France, St Joan of Arc, who opposed the English occupation of France, and St Ladislas of Hungary, who defended his country on the battlefield and was chosen to be commander in chief of the First Crusade.

Pax Christi as a political campaigning organisation

As a glance at its photo gallery makes clear, Pax Christi is a political campaigning organisation. It appears at rallies against nuclear weapons, the war in Iraq, and Israeli actions in Palestine. There is nothing illegitimage about political campaigning, but not only is the pacifistic tenor of the campaign is contrary to Catholic teaching, but such political questions as the legitimacy of the continuing occupation of Iraq are matters of legitimate disagreement for Catholics, and the Bishops of England and Wales have no business endorsing such an organisation by listing it in the Catholic Directory, let alone funding it through donations made on 'Peace Sunday'. These donations provided nearly £80,000 for their work in 2006 (out of a total income of £189,000) (pdf); the sum has grown considerably over recent years. (The next 'Peace Sunday' will be on January 19th 2009).

The fate of its one-time chaplain, Bruce Kent, is instructive: ordered by Cardinal Hume to keep out of politics, he left the priesthood. Politics had become more important to him than the priesthood. Lay Catholics may and indeed should take an interest in political matters, but they should not attempt to portray their political views as those of the Church, nor forget about the supernatural human vocation, and the importance of helping others to achieve it.

Pax Christi's bedfellows

Pax Christi's stance brings it into contact with some extremely un-Catholic organisations. Its links page is full of militant hard-left, anti-war and pacifist groups, most of whom are opposed to the Church's teaching on sexuality and the family.

Pax Christi is part of a network of dissident groups focused on so-called issues of 'justice and peace'. It is friendly to liberation theology, condemned in the 1980s by the Vatican, and links to Progressio. Pax Christi is well received by militant feminists, and gets good coverage in the 'Catholic Omnibus' (see our post here), the free newspaper run by the dissident feminists in charge of the National Board of Catholic Women. They are linked to by Progressio, Catholics for a Changing Church and a host of other dissenting groups.

The Damage Done by Pax Christi

Progressio and the feminists reject the Church's teaching on contraception and abortion, as set out in our dossiers on those groups (Progressio; Women Word Spirit). Pax Christi's role is a little more subtle. Throughout the Church, at parish and diocesan levels and at the Bishops' Conference, there are committees producing action plans for issues of 'Justice and Peace', in which Pax Christi plays an important part. Justice and peace are important aims for Catholics, but these groups are concerned with only a narrow set of issues, which are given a very specific political interpretation. The issues are poverty (in the UK and in the developing world), war and nuclear weapons, and perhaps green issues, and the approach to them is invariably left-leaning - generally supportive of the Labour party and government, criticising them only from the left. The practical and political impact of these committees is nugatory; their importance is as a distraction from the proclamation of the teaching of the Church on salvation, and political involvement on 'life' issues (abortion, euthanasia, stell cells etc.), and the family.

Thus the 'Justice and Peace' agenda is a continuation of the error of liberation theology, that the Church's main focus should be on the advancement of living standards rather than on the salvation of human souls. Furthermore, it is a deliberate displacement of political concern from issues on which the Church has teachings which require no controversial political judgments to apply to practical situations, namely on the life and family issues. The 'Justice and Peace' agenda gives the bishops and their lay hangers-on the feeling that they are deeply concerned and active on the important issues of the day, without straying from the comfort-zone of a Guardian-reader.

On the life and family issues, by contrast, bishops and Catholic intellectuals cannot bask in the glow of any left-leaning consensus. But there is no justice or peace while millions of babies are killed in the womb, the elderly are starved to death in hospital, and the family is undermined in every possible way by government policy.

How to Oppose Pax Christi

Just as the political judgments made by Pax Christi are not 'Catholic', so neither are the contrary political judgments. It is important not to fall into the error of opposing left-leaning politics in the Church with right-leaning politics. The problem within the Church, for Catholics as Catholics, is that Pax Christi is distorting Catholic teaching on war, and is presenting personal political views as somehow made necessary by Catholic teaching, when this is not the case.

They are doing this with money donated in good faith by Catholics who do not necessarily endorse these views: but even if they did, they should not be contributing to them at the back of church on a specially dedicated Sunday.

They are doing it in schools, with specially produced information packs, claiming to present a 'Catholic' view.

And they are doing it to the exclusion of the real political issues which Catholics as Catholics should be concerned about, the issues surrounding life and the family.

Pax Christi should be excluded from Catholic schools; parishes should refuse to give them space to spread their propaganda, and ask for money. They should be exposed as not even claiming to be a Catholic organisation.

Read More...

Summary only...

CAPS/Positive Catholics: Dossier

Catholics for AIDS Prevention and Support was founded in the late 1990s; it was the successor organisation to 'Catholic AIDS Link' which folded in 1997. CAPS became a registered charity in 2003. 'Positive Catholics', founded in 2004, is described as 'supported by' CAPS, but they share an email address; it seems that for certain purposes, such as their retreats at Douai Abbey, CAPS calls itself Positive Catholics.

This switching between different front organisations is characteristic of the founder and usual spokesman of CAPS (and previously of Catholic AIDS Link), ex-Carmelite priest Martin Pendergast (officially the Executive Secretary of CAPS) who also has the 'Roman Catholic Caucus of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement' and the 'Soho Masses Pastoral Council' to look after. While not always holding the highest-ranking position within these groups, it is he who usually talks to the press.

The point of having all these groups is that Pendergast and his friends can present different faces in different contexts. As a leading figure of the RCCLGCM, and its parent organisation, the LGCM, Pendergast was the one to read a statement, to be endorsed by their annual conference, condemning the Catholic bishops for their opposition to the Sexual Orientation Regulations; the conference banner described Pope Benedict as a homophobe (see our dossier on RCCLGCM/SMPC). The RCCLGCM could never get episcopal approval for Masses targeted at homosexual Catholics, but the same people calling themselves the SMPC have done exactly that. With CAPS they have gone a step further, being listed in the national Catholic Directory as a 'Catholic' organisation.

Pendergast is well known for his dissent from Catholic teaching. His long-term relationship with Julian Filochowski was formalised as a civil partnership in defiance of the Pope's condemnation of these, and his anniversary was celebrated by his friends with a book full of dissent from Church teaching; recently he has tried to claim Cardinal Newman was a homosexual. Wearing his CAPS hat, Pendergast makes little effort to hide his attitude to Church teaching. In the on-line newsletter 'Positive Nation', he was annoyed to read a letter reminding readers of Christian principles with regard to homosexuality:

I am not going to say my opinion, because the word of the Lord speaks for itself. When we live with a sin or are weak in an area, we should confess and admit our wrong and ask God for strength to forgo that issue. Having sex with the same sex is wrong in the eyes of the Lord, but we all have free will. I do not hate gays, we are all sinners that require God’s mercy and Grace.
All we need to do is pray that God removes us from our weakness. When God sees your willingness to be free from a sin, he will surely provide the strength and will forgive.
But please, gay people shouldn’t think it is Christians who impose this, it is in the word. And the word is our light. Pamela Murshore (see here).

He wrote in reply:

When Pamela Mushore brandishes her ‘one size fits all’ faith for all people she treads on dangerous ground. She uses the word ‘judge’, as if that were the most fundamental aspect by which the mystery of God might be known. The God who liberates rather than punishes is a God of love, not of fear.
She appears to read the Bible as if it were a book of rules to cover every occasion. Yet the Bible is the collected stories and reflections of peoples moving out of oppression and slavery into ‘the freedom of the children of God.’ It reflects the common human struggle to become more fully human, rejoicing in all that we are, including our sexualities.
Out of the love, caring, respect and solidarity so evident in the gay community’s first responses to HIV (and not just to gay men), is it not possible God might be showing a heterosexually dominant world new patterns of human loving? Catholics for AIDS Prevention & Support would strongly reject the false but no doubt sincere sentiments which Pamela seeks to dress up as biblical doctrine.
Martin Pendergast, Executive secretary - Catholics for Aids prevention and support.

The notion of 'rejoicing' in homosexuality is key to the attitude of the dissident Catholic circle to which CAPS belongs. It is obviously at odds with the teaching of the Church that homosexuality is 'objectively disordered' (see Catechism of the Catholic Church 2358). It is precisely 'rejoicing' in homosexuality, and more specifically the immoral gay subculture, which the LondonPride march is all about, and it is no surprise to see CAPS as an official participant, sharing a stall with RCCLGCM year after year (here's one report, here's another).

In an interview in Positive Nation, Pendergast tells us that Church teaching is optional as a guide: "Our line, whether in CAPS or the Lesbian and Gay Caucus, is that in reaching moral decisions as Catholics you respect the tradition of the church and listen to what its leaders are saying, but at the end of the day you have to reach those decisions yourself."

There are innumerable groups working with AIDS sufferers which have nothing but contempt for the teaching of the Church. CAPS/Positive Catholics is unusual in attempting to reassure Catholics, who might be in some doubt about it, that the immoral lifestyle which contributes to the spread of AIDS is not wrong even from a Catholic point of view. All of us, not least when we have the reminder of mortality provided by an incurable disease, need to examine ourselves in the light of the teaching of the Church, and to repent and go to confession, but CAPS is doing its best to cut some of the most vulnerable Catholics off from this. It is an appalling situation that their claim to be 'Catholic' is being supported by the Catholic Directory.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 'The Pastoral Care of the Homosexual Person', 1986, has this to say: (See here for the full text.17:'All support should be withdrawn from any organisations which seek to undermine the teaching of the Church, which are ambiguous about it, or which neglect it entirely.'

Pseudo-Catholic organisations gain power from their assumed identity as Catholic, and use it to cause scandal. They must be exposed for what they are.

Read More...

Summary only...

Marriage Care: Dossier

Marriage Care was founded in 1946 as a Catholic organisation. It still finds a place in the Catholic Directory, claims to be a member of the 'Federation of Catholic Family Associations in Europe' (though does not appear on their site), has a priest (Canon Michael Cooley) on its board of directors, and absorbs Catholic resources, not least its volunteer counsellors, but it does not describe itself as a Catholic organisation: rather, 'It is a Christian organisation, developed from within the Catholic community, of people concerned about marriage, relationships and family life.' In actual fact it actively undermines Catholic teaching in a number of ways. In this it is typical of many good Catholic organisations which have undergone a collective apostasy: they deny the teaching of the Church, they undermine good morals, but they still want to use their traditional sources of support in the Church.

As long ago as its 1972 publication 'Preparing Engaged Couples for Marriage' it was dissenting from the Church's teaching on contraception, reaffirmed only four years earlier by Pual VI in Humanae Vitae. On page 81, in referring to sterilization, the Pill, IUDs, condoms, withdrawal and spermicidal creams it stated 'It is inaccurate to brand these methods as 'artificial' as though there was something necessarily wrong in man using artifice'

Today they manage the remarkable trick of denying that they are Catholic and yet giving the 'Catholic' contribution to debates on issues such as sex education. They are a member of the Sex Education Forum (see here); the Forum has as a formal aim 'To promote and raise the profile of children and young people’s entitlement to SRE through policy and advocacy work;' (see here). The Forum's 'fact sheets' include ones on the importance of teaching primary school children about the names of body parts, and 'safe' and 'unsafe' relationships (pdf) and the need to tackle homophobic bullying by promoting gay role models and getting in touch with such organisations as Stonewall (which voted Archbishop Nichols of Birminham as a runner-up 'bigot of the year') and the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (whose recent conference banner denounced Pope Benedict XVI as a 'homophobe') (pdf).

Not content with their contribution to the Sex Eduction Forum, Marriage Care has its own sex ed materials. These, naturally, conform to the Government-approved non-judgmental model: the information the children are given to help them to make the most important decisions of their lives is almost exclusively value-free. Thus we see in a lesson plan preparing pupils for puberty:
Today it is common for sexual relationships to begin much earlier and the average age for first sexual intercourse is 17. ... Early sexual experience should not be taken lightly however, because of the dangers to health, both physically and emotionally. (See here)

To this is added information about contraception and sexually transmitted diseases:
Preparing young people for their journey onwards into adulthood necessarily includes the teaching of all aspects of sexual health. Although it is often one of the most difficult topics to talk about openly, by exploring these areas in the safe environment of school, young people are better equipped to make informed choices when presented with a new and potentially dangerous situation. (See here)

These excepts are taken from lesson plans intended for Key Stage 3, ie 13-14 yr-olds. This entire approach is contrary to the Vatican's guidance on sex education, which says that the 'age of innocence', during which children are not troubled by questions of sexuality, should be respected, and not violated by unwanted information and intrusive questioning, and that in general information should be given by parents, one-to-one, and in response to the questions and needs of the individual child (see here). It is almost incredible that a mixed-sex class-room of giggling 13-yr-olds should be described as a 'safe environment' in the context of exposing the most private aspects of children's physical and emotional lives.

Unsurprisingly Marriage Care espouses a 'modern' view of marriage which has little to do with Catholic teaching. For example, the Chairman, Terry Prendergast, repeatedly claims that the reason marriages were longer-lasting in previous generations was that they were 'patriarchal', whereas now women have taken on male roles, and that in the past marriages were made for a variety of reasons, whereas now they are made for 'love'. And of course the old conception and practice of marriage is much inferior to the new. (See here and here.) This combination of views may seem surprising in the head of an organisation dedicated to helping marriages stay together, but it is part of a feminist view that the rise in divorce is necessary for the liberation of women (despite the fact that women usually suffer more from it than men). The fact that earlier generations, imbued with Christian rather than materialist or feminist values, were loyal to their wedding vows is something Prendergast views with patronising pity: well, they didn't know any better, did they? He has also written in the Tablet in favour of sex before marriage, and is quoted condoning the blessing of illicit second marriages by priests (here), and praising same-sex partnerships (here).

The basic problem driving organisations such as Marriage Care out of the Church is the idea that they must be open to all comers: not so much from Christian love of neighbour as a desire for financing and acceptance by Government and the swarm of organisations that feed on the Government agenda. Thus Marriage Care tells us that 'we accept those who come to the organisation for help, support or education without any judgement or discrimination in relation to their marital status, creed, race, gender or sexual orientation.' But how can they claim that their counselling is informed by Christian values, and that they have a Christian conception of marriage as 'a covenant between two people and a sacramental union', if they are counselling gay couples about how to maintain their immoral relationship? Note that they describe marriage as a covenant between two PEOPLE, not a man and a woman. Without a Catholic understanding of what marriage is, they will not be effective in helping married people live out their vocations.

Marriage Care's work is a slightly modified or disguised version of the work of innumerable secular organisations which are working out the Government vision of value-free sex, homosexual marriage, and the combat of teenage pregnancy by teaching younger and younger pre-pubescent children how to use contraception. It is far more dangerous than these other organisations, however, even if it's message is toned down a bit, because it presents itself, and is presented by organs of the Church, as in some sense 'Catholic'. Thus, in addition to the damage they do directly by their counselling and sex ed. materials, they will lead astray individuals and schools, inside or outside the Church, who might be genuinly interested in a Catholic approach, and give comfort to those, like the Sex Education Forum, who want to claim that 'moderate' Catholics accept the sex education programme.

As with all pseudo-Catholic organisations, this damage must be opposed by exposing Marriage Care for what it is: a secular organisation feeding off the Church and the goodwill of Catholics, while actively undermining good morals and Catholic teaching.

Read More...

Summary only...

CWN/WWS: Dossier

Catholic Women’s Network (a.k.a. Women Word Spirit)

The Catholic Women’s Network (CWN) was founded in 1984 by radical dissenting feminists, including members of an older dissident organisation, the St. Joan’s International Alliance (SJIA). The inaugural meeting was held at St. Mary’s Teacher Training College, Twickenham, and the key speaker was the American radical feminist Rosemary Radford Reuther. The CWN started off by appointing its own ‘Core Group’, the feminist equivalent of an executive committee. Early members of the Core Group included Jenny Bond, who was personal assistant to Mgr. Vincent Nichols, then General Secretary to the Bishop’s Conference (now Archbishop Nichols of Birmingham). Four years after its inception CWN became a constituent member of the umbrella organisation for Catholic women’s groups known as the National Board of Catholic Women (NBCW), which is also an official advisory body to the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales.

In 1987 Jenny Bond, along with others, approached the Bishop’s Conference to see if it would agree to a ‘Woman’s Committee’ being officially attached to the Conference. This action eventually led to the admission of both the SJIA and the CWN to the NBCW. Both dissenting groups were formally admitted in 1988 although at the time, CWN had not even finalised its constitution. Indeed, its constitution was still not ready in November 1989 although member organisations of the NBCW are required to have a proper constitution. To this day the bishops have never given any explanation as to why these two openly dissident groups were allowed to circumvent the rules of one of their official advisory bodies, or why favour was shown to such groups. Members of the CWN wasted no time in infiltrating the upper echelons of the NBCW in order to further their radical agenda. To this day there is a disproportionate number of known CWN members/supporters in senior positions in the NBCW, and also in the editorship of its quarterly newspaper, called “Catholic Omnibus”.

The CWN began to be listed as a Catholic Society “with ecclesiastical approval”, in the 1990 Catholic Directory. Up until very recently, it has remained in the National Catholic Directory, in spite of its open dissent from Catholic teaching. One reason it has continued to be listed in the Directory for so many years is by dishonestly stating in its entry that it “acknowledges and accepts the authentic teaching of the Church”, which it clearly doesn’t. Although missing from the 2007 Directory due to an administrative error, and it was also not listed in the 2008 Directory for reasons unknown, it could well return, so vigilance is needed. CWN is still listed in several diocesan directories.

In 1991, the results of an NBCW consultation were published as a booklet entitled “Do Not Be Afraid”. It was presented to the Bishops’ Conference, who decided, in response, to establish what came to be known as the national ‘Joint Dialogue Group’ (JDG). Originally, it was to have six members chosen by the Bishops’ Conference and six chosen by the NBCW. It was quickly agreed, however, that all twelve would be joint appointments, acceptable to both parties. Needless to say, the JDG was full of known CWN members and supporters.

The journal of the CWN is called “Network”. This is where most of the evidence of CWN’s dissent has been gleaned over the years. The CORE group of CWN, which regularly reviews the aims, purposes and approaches of the organisation, issued an open letter to CWN members on page 10 of the December 2003 issue of Network. This open letter contains explicit admissions that CWN:
a) is not Catholic:
“Core meetings – these again show a difference over the past few years in the amount of time and attention given to specific RC Church matters, while Core itself currently has some members not from Catholic backgrounds, or who are detached from the organisation of the RC Church . . .”
“We have members along a wide continuum, from women active in the Catholic Church, those active in other churches or not active in any formal church, and others who are ‘post-denominational’ . . .”
“Many others say that they are deterred by the word ‘catholic’, even though we explain that the term is used in a wide sense . . .”
b) does not have Catholic aims:
“These show a wide range of justice and peace issues, ‘saying yes to God’ women’s liturgies, Taoism and Buddhism, mediation, theology for the 21st Century, writing our funerals. The groups around the country report on action from NBCW, vigils outside Cathedrals, activities in diocesan organisations, deaneries and parishes. . . . ”
“Other predominantly Catholic interests include the activities of We Are Church and Catholic Women’s Ordination . . .”
“We know that CWN has members along a wide continuum from those very active in parishes and local ministries, committed to study and working to change the church from within, and also those whose origin was Catholic but who now place themselves on the margin and either campaign for change from outside or seek to build alternative ways of pursuing spirituality, theology, ministry and liturgy . . .”
c) has nonetheless been very successful in infiltrating and taking control of the NBCW and influencing the Bishops of England and Wales:
“Our main and important Catholic contribution is through the National Board of Catholic Women . . .”
“CWN has made a major contribution in the specifically Catholic world, particularly through our membership of the NBCW and its relationship with the hierarchy . . .”

Although CWN claims to “acknowledge and accept the authentic teaching of the Church” the following three things can be cited as absolute proof of its dissent:-

1) Despite its claim not to be pro-abortion, CWN, as an organisation, co-signed a pro-abortion/contraception document by the group “Catholics for a Free Choice, titled “A Faith-Filled Commitment to Development Includes a Commitment to Women’s Rights and Reproductive Health”, (see http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/news/pr/2005/documents/mdgreligiousenglish.pdf )

2) CWN, as an organisation, made an open declaration supporting the aims of Women’s Ordination Worldwide, which was published in the CWN journal Network in September 2001. This declaration stated:- “Women’s Ordination Worldwide, International Conference, Dublin, June 2001. From: Catholic Women’s Network. ‘Catholic Women’s Network believes that the gospel speaks about freedom from oppression and calls women to full participation in all aspects of life and the church as a matter of justice. We strongly endorse the aims of the world-wide movement for the ordination of women in the Roman Catholic Church, and of the recent conference in Dublin, for a renewal of priesthood within transformed and inclusive structures, where women’s gifts are welcomed and accepted. We believe that it is totally wrong to attempt to ban serious debate, reflection and research of this issue. We commend the vision of those who initiated the conference and are grateful that it has re-energised us all to work more vigorously for the above aims. Catholic Women’s Network


3) CWN/WWS’s “starter pack”, issued in June 2006, states on page 1 that the title WWS is “a more inclusive and descriptive name which also recognises that the membership has always included many women from other denominations or none”. It goes on to say that CWN was founded in 1984 and went through a process of “‘denouncing’ aspects of church which inhibit women’s participation and ‘announcing’ a new vision of how church could be”. The group also “identified strategies for bringing about change . . . in our church institutions”. On page 2 it states that “WWS feels that the contribution women can make as responsible Christians, gifted in the spirit, to the RC Church is often ignored; in particular women are excluded from the ordained ministry and thereby from the leadership in the church . . .” On page 5 of the pack, WWS proudly shows its networking links with other dissenting groups, even giving website/e-mail addresses so that they can be contacted – in other words, helping to spread and promote dissent. WWS’s networking group list contains all the usual pro-abortion/contraception, pro-homosexual and pro-women’s ordination groups, which CWN have long promoted and supported:-

• Association for Inclusive Language

• Catholics for a Changing Church

• Catholic Womens’ Ordination / Women’s Ordination Worldwide

• Roman Catholic Caucus of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement

• Living Spirituality Network

• European Network – Church on the Move

• Catholics for a Free Choice

(see http://www.womenwordspirit.org/otherwebs/index.html for this starter pack. This webpage also contains the WWS documents “How to plan women’s liturgies/rituals” and “Create your own mandalas” )
There is clearly enough evidence here to show that CWN/WWS does not “acknowledge and accept the authentic teaching of the Church” so it is high time that our hierarchy stopped assisting them.

Further information on CWN / WWS and other dissenting feminist individuals and groups can be found in Patricia Phillips’ articles on the http://www.catholic-feminism.co.uk/ website.

Read More...

Summary only...

Quest: Dossier

Update: as of summer 2008 Quest has a new Chair, or 'acting Chair', Peter Rodgers (picture), who organised the regular 'gay' Masses in the Dominican Holy Cross Priory, Leicester.

Quest, founded in 1973 and led by the journalist (and former Dominican friar) Mark Dowd, tells us that it ‘is a group for lesbian, gay and bisexual Catholics. Its purpose is to proclaim the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ so as to sustain and increase Christian belief among homosexual men and women.’ A laudable aim, to be sure; unfortunately, the ‘gospel’ and the ‘Christian belief’ which they promote are not compatible with Catholic teaching.

This dossier aims to indicate more precisely what Quest does stand for, its relationship with the mainstream Church, and its potential for causing damage.

What does Quest stand for?

In parallel with many dissident organisations, some care is taken on the Quest website to avoid explicit rejection of Church teaching. The general public is only allowed to see edited versions of their newsletter, and are excluded from the discussion forum and other areas; and lest its Committee be identified from other sources as dissenters, they are identified only by their Christian names. But although these tactics make it harder to provide telling sound-bites, the secrecy itself tells us a lot about the organisation.

The first and obvious question about a Catholic organisation for the support of homosexuals is ‘Does it help its members and others to lead chaste lives?’ By contrast to homosexual support groups which do have this aim (such as the Encourage Trust), Quest gives absolutely no indication that this is its purpose. On the contrary, the first of their list of aims is ‘associating lay men and women who are seeking ways of reconciling the full practice of their Catholic faith with the full expression of their homosexual natures in loving Christian relationships’

We may safely assume that this in turn is understood in accordance with the views of their members, expressed in a survey it conducted in 2000 (the results of which are no longer available on their website, but are preserved here):

* Are you convinced by any arguments that you have heard to the effect that sex outside marriage is always wrong? 89 percent 'no'

* Do you agree that a homosexual orientation is a more or less strong tendency ordered towards an intrinsic moral evil and thus must be seen as an objective disorder. 92 percent 'no'

* Should Quest work for change in official Church teaching on sexuality? 90 percent 'yes'

* Should it be part of the purpose of Quest to encourage its members to live chaste lives with no sexual activity? 81 percent 'no'

* Should Quest support legislation to recognise same-sex partnerships. 80 percent 'yes'

It is no surprise, then, to find Quest campaigning (in the spirit of the third question above) against exercises of the Church's Magisterium on sexual morality, and attempting to undermine the Church's actions informed by that teaching

Thus it rejected the Vatican's 2005 statement on admitting homosexuals to seminaries, here, calling it 'a backward step for the Church . . . It confirms that the Church pastors have failed to listen to the voices of modern medicine, science and psychology'.

Again, when Archbishop Vincent Nichols made a stand against the Sexual Orientation Regulations, this too came under official Quest condemnation here.

Finally, Quest made a long and detailed submission to the Bishops' Conference of England and Wales on the question of Civil Partnerships, attacking the position articulated by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which condemned them. In the same vein, Mark Dowd, in his capacity as Chair of Quest, condemned the Scottish Bishops' opposition to Civil Unions (Catholic Herald, 3rd Feb 2006).

In short, Quest, like the RCCLGCM, is an organisation dedicated to 'normalising', within the Church, an immoral lifestyle. They may regard this lifestyle as necessary to the self-fulfilment of people of homosexual inclination, but they are mistaken: this lifestyle leads to unhappiness. This is the teaching of the Church, and it is confirmed by experience.

Quest and the Bishops

Quest has few credentials as a 'Catholic' organisation. After a few years in the national Catholic Directory, it has been excluded since 1998 by Cardinal Hume (their own account of the saga can be read here). Recently, a Quest event in the Liverpool University Catholic Chaplaincy was cancelled at the insistence of Bishop Kelly.

That is the good news. Mark Dowd has boasted that 'some bishops have remained privately supportive of Quest' (Autumn 2005 Quest Bulletin), and this sadly seems to be true. Quest is still listed in some Diocesan Catholic Directories as a 'Catholic' group; Masses are regularly said for local Quest groups in private houses, and increasingly these are happening in public churches. For example:

Leicester: the local Quest have had Masses in Dominican-run Holy Cross parish.

Nottingham: Quest reports in its Newsletter that Bishop Malcolm McMahon OP has actively encouraged them.

Bristol: a retreat for 'Gay Christian Men' is taking place in April this year in Emmaus House, Clifton, a centre run by La Retraite nuns; it is recommended by Quest as 'an opportunity for gay Christian men to share their stories in a spirit of mutual respect.'

Birmingham: the local Quest group has had Mass said for them in the church of St Catherine of Siena, Bristol Street.

Aylesford, Kent: Mass is celebrated for them (on the '5th Saturday of the month') in the Carmelite Priory.

Southwark: their upcoming conference is taking place in Digby Stuart College, part of the University of Roehampton, which is a Catholic foundation with a chapel; the same Archdiocese is allowing one of its priests to be Chaplain to the conference, and to celebrate Mass for them. Equally scandalously, Fr Michael Seed, a priest of the Archdiocese of Westminster, is advertised as a speaker at the conference.

Meanwhile, in Scotland, Quest Masses take place in St Partick's, Edinburgh and St Simon’s, Glasgow (see Catholic Truth Scotland Newsletters here and here).

The damage done by Quest

Quest causes damage in three ways.

1. It is a 'Catholic' voice opposed to Church teaching, and Church policy, on all matters related to sexual morality, waiting to be quoted by liberals and anti-Catholics in the media. Like 'Catholics for a Free Choice', it can hope to embarrass Bishops and other Catholics by contradicting anything they say or do in support of Church teaching, and creating the impression that the teaching of the Church is uncertain, and may be about to change. The Chair, Mark Dowd, is a prominent journalist who makes regular appearances in the 'conservative' Catholic newspaper, the Catholic Herald.

2. It causes scandal to faithful Catholics who witness or hear about their events, and especially their Masses, which appear to give official endorsement to their rejection of Church teaching.

3. It gives its own homosexual members, attendees at its Masses and so on precisely the wrong pastoral advice. All humans afflicted by Original Sin are assailed by temptation; Quest holds out the false but alluring hope that in the case at least of sexual temptations, people who think of themselves as Catholics can just give in and 'express themselves'. This leads to sin and unhappiness: it is not charitable to anyone.

For bishops and priests to allow Quest and like-minded groups to take on a role in making pastoral provision for vulnerable people is for the shepherd to place the wolf in charge of the sheep.

Opposing Quest

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is absolutely clear as to what the Church's own policy must be, in its document, 'The Pastoral Care of the Homosexual Person', 1986: (See here for the full text.)

17: 'All support should be withdrawn from any organisations which seek to undermine the teaching of the Church, which are ambiguous about it, or which neglect it entirely. Such support, or even the semblance of such support, can be gravely misinterpreted. Special attention should be given to the practice of scheduling religious services and to the to the use of Church buildings by these groups, including the facilities of Catholic schools and colleges. To some, such permission to use Church property may seem only just and charitable; but in reality it is contradictory to the purpose for which these institutions were founded, it is misleading and often scandalous...'

This is unanswerable, and has the full support of Pope Benedict XVI, who was President of the CDF when this document was produced. This gives faithful Catholics all the ammunition they need to report any Quest activity which has implicit or explicit support from bishops or priests to the diocese, the Papal Nuncio and the Vatican.

Read More...

Summary only...