Clerical abuse and clericalism

Read James Preece's brilliant analysis of the clerical abuse scandals and Catholic culture. Here's the money quote:

As far as I can see, the position of the Bishops Conference of England and Wales including our own Bishop Terrence Drainey is currently "let us have a culture that tolerates and even encourages clerical abuse, in which priests and bishops are free to abuse their power and authority and laypeople are expected to be co-conspirators or else face accusations of disrespect and disloyalty but let us make an exception for the sort of abuse that the civil authorities take seriously, that is, the sort of abuse that costs money and looks bad in the papers".

This is like saying "stealing is okay, as long as you don't steal anything somebody will notice" or "lying is okay, as long as nobody finds out". Essentially, the Bishops are saying "it's okay with us if priests abuse their power, as long as they don't do anything illegal".

What concerns me most of all is this: As long as the culture remains in place, the potential for harm continues. As long as the culture remains in place, the potential for "[hiding] behind a clericalism which is prepared to protect vicious behaviour at the expense of defenceless innocents" remains in place.

This is simply unacceptable.

This is partly why this blog has never been shy about reporting clerical abuse stories - something which the aggressive liberals in the comments boxes have never been able to understand, and which has got us in trouble with conservative Catholics as well.

Clericalism and ultramontanism is not the answer to the problems of today. Yes, we have problems of disobedience of legitimate authority justly exercised, and in those cases the authority should be supported. But this is not the opposite problem as the sex abuse being covered up by bishops: it is another example of the same problem.

How so? The sex abusers were disobedient. Their bishops didn't approve of the abuse; they asked them to stop. The abusers were breaking canon law as well as the natural law. The abuse persisted because of a failure of legitimate authority. But it also persisted because of the false deference towards that failing authority.

Because no-one wanted to confront and denounce the bishops and religious superiors who were failing to exercise their authority, out of deference to that authority, they were enabled to go on not exercising their authority.

The clerical club which protected the abusers, without necessarily approving of them, is also tolerating priests who commit liturgical abuses, refuse to give the faithful communion kneeling, refuse to teach the whole gospel, and turn their parishes into centres for left-wing activism.

Read More...

Summary only...

Home Schooling in the spotlight

Comment: notice how the NSPCC is gunning for homeschoolers. There is in fact less chance of a child being abused if he is being taught at home, than at school, but the NSPCC and its allies in the government don't want to be confused with facts. They like to see all the boys and girls in neat row so they can indoctrinate them as they like.

The actual proposals here don't threaten serious damage to homeschooling, but the threat is always there.

From CFNews: A review of home education in England is expected to recommend a national registration scheme for home educators. It is also expected to say local authorities should have the right to visit any child taught at home.

The government commissioned a review to find out whether local councils were monitoring home educated children, or offering parents enough support.

But the government has also been concerned that home education could be a cover for abuse. The review, conducted by former director of education for Kent, Graham Badman, will say that parents who home educate should have to register annually on a scheme administered by local councils. But a parent's right to home educate will not be challenged, ministers have said.


Support
Local authorities currently have no statutory duty to monitor children educated at home. But they must ensure that all children are receiving a suitable education, either in school or otherwise.

Children's Secretary Ed Balls said: 'We will ask local authorities to provide easier access to extra support for those home-educated children who need it - particularly the relatively high proportion of home-educated children who have special educational needs and others who need or want to access services that would otherwise be provided through their school.' He said asking home educators to register would bring England into line with other European countries.

Scotland differs slightly from the rest of the UK in that local authorities are encouraged to inspect home educating families at least once a year.

'Outdated'
But home educators say authorities should stop treating them with suspicion and concentrate on giving them support.

Ann Newstead, spokeswoman for home education group Education Otherwise, said: 'If one thing could come out of this review which would mean it was not a complete waste of public money, it would be that the decision to home educate is treated with respect and as a positive choice.'

The review is not expected to propose any minimum standards or set subjects. It is understood the review has not found any evidence that home education was being used specifically to conceal trafficked children, or forced marriages.

Children's charities have urged the government to tighten up rules regarding home education. NSPCC head of policy and public affairs, Diana Sutton, said current legislation was 'outdated' and a system was needed to deal with cases where local authorities had concerns.

Estimates of how many children are home educated vary from between 20,000 and 80,000 children. [BBC]

Read More...

Summary only...

CAFOD to use a pagan guru on pilgrimage

This really beggars belief, so let's hear it direct from the website of the Diocese of Hexham and Newcastle. If you didn't have sufficient reason to stop supporting CAFOD before, you do now: they have arranged for a Catholic pilgrimage to be led, in part, by a pagan leader with a view to him imparting his spiritual wisdom to pilgrims. For the other reasons, see our dossier on CAFOD.

From the Diocese of Hexham and Newcastle: A Brazilian of the Yanomami tribe will be the special guest at CAFOD's annual pilgrimage to Holy Island this year.

Davi Kopenawa Yanomami is a member of the Yanomami índios in Brazil, and a spokesman on tribal issues and Amazon Rainforest conservation. CAFOD supports Hutukara, an indigenous grassroots organisation of which Davi is president. He will be joining pilgrims for the day on June 13 to walk across the Pilgrims' Way from the main land to the island. Davi will also lead the reflection at key points along the way with reflections from his own tradition, focussing on how we live in harmony with God's creation.

CAFOD Hexham & Newcastle Diocesan Manager Anne-Marie Hanlon said: "This is a real honour for us, and we are thrilled to have Davi coming to Holy Island this year. He is an inspirational speaker and comes from a tradition where people are still fundamentally linked to their environment. It will be very interesting to hear what he has to say about climate change, and also to hear how his customs value the stories of his ancestors just as he will hear how we revere our Northern saints.”

Read More...

Summary only...

The Recife Affair

From CFNews gives a long commentary on the affair from Mgr Schoonans., here. He discusses the multiple inaccuracies of the article by Archbishop Rino Fisichella in the Osservatore Romano of the 15th of March, which it shares with other attacks on the local ordinary who reminded the abortionists that, under canon law, they were excommunicated latae sententiae (ie without him having to do anything). Mgr Schoonans also reports that Mgr Lombardi, the Vatican press officer, appeared to try to re-interpret remarks of the Holy Father to make them compatible with support for the Recife abortion (which he falsely suggested was an example of 'indirect' abortion: medical treatment such as chemotherapy not aiming at the death of the unborn child, which brings it about).

The most worrying thing here is the impression of divisionsn and open dissent at the highest reaches of the Vatican.

Here is an extract.


3. Divisions in the Church

1. According to RF, the attitude of Archbishop Cardoso undermines the credibility of the Church. But the Church and its pastors do not deserve to be credible unless they proclaim the truth. The Gospel does not recommend that we please men, it calls us to be faithful to the message which it is our mission to announce. As regards abortion, the Church's doctrine is expounded with clarity in major documents such as Gaudium et spes (1965), para. 51 § 3 ; cf. para. 27 § 3 ; Code of Canon Law (1983), para. 1398 ; 1314; 1323 s. ; Donum vitae (1987), para. 3 ; Evangelium vitae (1995), para. 62 ; Catechism of the Catholic Church (1997), para. 2271, 2322.

RF's article was published in the French edition of the Osservatore Romano on 17 March. It is astonishing that it fails to echo the statements of His Eminence, Cardinal Re, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for Bishops, published in La Stampa on 7 March. Could RF have been unaware of this statement when he signed his article? In this statement, Cardinal Re declares, with regard to the double abortion performed at Recife: " it is a crime in the eyes of God. The excommunication of the person performing the abortion is just". On 14 March, Dom Cardoso, Archbishop of Olinda and Recife, received a letter of praise from that same Cardinal. The Church's position is also reaffirmed by Father Gianfranco Grieco, Head of the Pontifical Council for the Family, in La Stampa of 7 March.

2. The Osservatore Romano is the unofficial mouthpiece of the Vatican. It publishes pontifical texts. It also publishes articles at the request of certain dicasteries. It also publishes texts proposed by authors considered to be knowledgeable about and respecting of the Church's doctrine. This prestigious publication is particularly necessary at a time when the media pronounce with assurance on any issue. As Molière wrote, " People of quality know everything without ever having learned anything. " (Les précieuses ridicules, scene 10). With some notable exceptions, adherence to an elementary code of ethics, for example, checking the sources on which relies, does not appear to be a priority. In the case under examination, those in charge of the Osservatore Romano let through a text containing serious inaccuracies and omissions and biased in every sense of the word. To cap it all, instead of putting a stop to the circulation of this article in foreign languages, the publication's Director arranged for the text to be circulated in different languages. The Vatican's mouthpiece is therefore seriously adding to a muddying of the waters in as far as it is failing to comply with its mandate as a faithful mouthpiece, palming off on its readers products which are doctrinally dubious.

3. On 20 March, a few days after the appearance of RF's article, while meeting the authorities in Luanda, Benedict XVI made reference to the abortion. The Pope regrets that the abortion is being presented as a matter of maternal health. Let us quote the strong words pronounced by the Pope:

"How bitter the irony of those who promote abortion as a form of maternal healthcare! How disconcerting the claim that the termination of life is a matter of reproductive health!" (Osservatore Romano, French edition, 31 March 2009, pages 4 and 15).

Whence immediate protests from certain journalists, whose reasoning can be summarised as follows: " Abortion is a matter of reproductive health. Yet the Pope is against abortion. Therefore he is opposed to reproductive health, which must include therapeutic abortion." According to this sophistic argument, the premature twins constitute a serious danger to the young Carmen and are themselves in danger, and so it is necessary to go ahead with the abortion.

The next day, in Luanda, Father Federico Lombardi S.J., Head of the Vatican's Press Office, felt obliged, even authorised, to blunt the authority of the Pope's statement, quoted above. The statement did not relate to therapeutic abortion, as understood by the ideologists of reproductive health and safe motherhood. In a context in which he is commenting on the Pope's words, Fr Lombardi goes so far as to affirm, incautiously, that the Catholic Church has " always allowed indirect abortion ", when treatment given to a pregnant woman in order to save her life "results in the death of the foetus " (Cathobel, 23 March). The double abortion performed on Carmen would be therapeutic and would thus, in the twisted logic of the Reverend Father, escape the sanction of Canon Law. It would not be condemned by the Pope who moreover - it is added- said nothing, in Africa, on the events in Recife. It is therefore difficult for Father Lombardi to have avoided compromising the Holy Father by creating the impression that the Pope did not condemn the double abortion in Recife, on the grounds that this double abortion was therapeutic! It follows that the Pope would have implicitly disagreed with Archbishop Cardoso!

Admittedly, Father Lombardi asserted, in Luanda, that he did not have all the necessary information regarding the Recife case. However, his statement poses a fundamental problem. Is it normal for a journalist, even a highflyer, to set himself up as an authorised interpreter of what the Pope has just said, especially if his interpretation has the effect of blunting the edge of the Holy Father's statements? It would doubtless be necessary to clarify the levels of expertise and authority. Should the Pope's words be so obscure as to need deciphering by an unofficial media magisteriium?

4. Serious grounds for concern have emerged in circles close to the Pontifical Academy for Life and the Pontifical Council for the Family:

a. Incomprehension and sadness on the part of a considerable number of Christians, engaged for several years in multiple pro-life programmes encouraged by the Church. A feeling, often well-founded, of having been " abandoned " by their pastor.

b. Perplexity and shame on the part of many members of the Pontifical Academy for Life, who are wondering how such a faux pas could have occurred, and what action will be taken.

c. Discredit affecting the President of the Pontifical Academy for Life, who has undermined his own moral, theological and scientific authority. Loss of confidence in the President and disillusionment. Many members of the Pontifical Academy for Life fear that RF's statements will compromise them at rank and file level. There will be a down-sizing in aid of all kinds earmarked for the activities of the Pontifical Academy for Life.

d. Fears of a weakening of the Pontifical Academy for Life: its members will be less motivated and will become divided among themselves. There is already talk of only convening members of the Academy every two years. But where is this decision coming from, if confirmed? Is it, as rumoured in certain circles, the prelude to the burial of the Pontifical Academy for Life, at a time when the attacks on life are incessantly multiplying ?

5. In his Letter to the Archbishops of the World, dated 10 March 2009, the Holy Father, quoting the letter to the Galatians (5, 13-15), wrote: "If you bite and devour one another, be warned: you will destroy one another " Referring to the question of Archbishops following the lead of Archbishop Lefebvre, this quotation also deserves to be repeated in relation to the scandal of Notre Dame University and the harrowing story of Carmen and her twins.

Read More...

Summary only...

Say no to clapping at Mass

A note on a form of liturgical abuse from Fr Z.

"Wherever applause breaks out in the liturgy because of some human achievement, it is a sure sign that the essence of liturgy has totally disappeared and been replaced by a kind of religious entertainment. " (Spirit of the Liturgy p. 198)

This message has been brought to you by Sober Inebriation Weblog.

If you should encounter applause during Mass in your parish do not panic. Immediately after Mass go out and get a copy of Pope Benedict’s book "The Spirit of the Liturgy" by Ignatius Press and give it to your pastor as a gift. Be sure to highlight the above passage on page 198. Yellow highlighter works really, really well.

Read More...

Summary only...

Archbishop MacDonald imposes 'All that I Am'

From CFNews: Although the explicit visual material in the 'All That I Am' sex-education programme triggers off alarms on pornography-filtering computer programmes, Archbishop McDonald is permitting the resource for primary and secondary schools to be used in mixed classes the Diocese of Southwark. 'All That I Am' is sponsored, and partly financed, by the government's Teenage Pregnancy Unit. Parents are objecting to the scheme which they call 'institutionalised sex abuse'. The Catholic Church teaches that parents' rights on sex education are 'inalienable'.

See also Catholic Mom of 10

Read More...

Summary only...

Cardinal Murph-O'Connor not to join Blair Foundation

Comment: this is a relief. Tony Blair is at least suffering some fallout from his outrageous outburst attacking the Pope over condoms. The story was reported in the Tablet last weekend.

From CFNews: According to an item in the Guardian, a spokesman for Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor says that the former Archbishop of Westminster "does not envisage joining the board the Tony Blair Faith Foundation at this stage". Yet on Friday afternoon the Faith Foundation website was still announcing: "HE Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor, Archbishop of Westminster, will join the Advisory Council once he has retired as Archbishop."

This item was shortly followed by a statement issued by a TBF spokesman. "We can totally understand Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor wanting to review his commitments now he has retired as Archbishop of Westminster. The Foundation has always valued the private advice he has offered and welcome him continuing to do so in his retirement.

"While they support the broad aims of the Foundation, we do not expect the Advisory Council members to agree with Tony Blair on every aspect of policy past or present. Their role is to provide advice and guidance, alongside many other senior religious'.

Read More...

Summary only...

Final defeat of Catholic adoption agencies

Briefing.

From CFNews: Catholic adoption societies which refuse to offer children to homosexual couples face closure following a tribunal ruling.
Judges ruled in a test case that the charities, which find homes for hundreds of children each year, will be breaking the law if they refuse to accept same-sex couples as adoptive parents.

The ruling means some Catholic agencies face a choice between abandoning their adoption services or their religious principles.

The ruling means some Catholic agencies face a choice between abandoning their adoption services or their religious principles.

One diocese has already said it is likely to close its adoption charities.
Some of the long-standing charities have not opposed adoption by same-sex couples since Labour's 2007 Sexual Orientation Regulations stated that no organisation or company may discriminate against gays.

But yesterday's appeal ruling by the Charity Tribunal confirmed that those which have stuck to Catholic teaching must now do the same or give up trying to get children adopted.
In its appeal, the Catholic Care charity, run by the diocese of Leeds, said that the right to discriminate against homosexual couples was 'a principle of a Catholic organisation'.
But following the ruling a spokesman for the diocese said: 'As the charities cannot provide unrestricted services without being in breach of their obligations to act in accordance with the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church, it seems likely that the charities will need to close their adoption services and a flagship service of the charities will be lost.
'We are concerned about the possible impact this will have on potential adoptive parents and children.'
Tribunal president Alison McKenna ruled that the Catholic Care charity was 'a well-respected voluntary adoption agency which has made a significant contribution to the provision of adoption services in this country and facilitated many successful adoption placements'.
But she and two colleagues said the charity's activities would be unlawful if it went on refusing to accept gay adoptive parents.
Other Catholic adoption agencies declined to comment. [MailOnline]
The news that the Catholic Adoption Agencies had lost their case before the Charity Tribunal 'is sad but was certainly not unexpected, at least as far as I was concerned, writes barrister Neil Addison in his 'Religion Law Blog'.
'What the agencies were trying to do was to change their objects so as to add the following
"The Charity shall only provide adoption services to heterosexuals and such services to heterosexuals shall only be provided in accordance with the tenets of the Church. For the avoidance of doubt the Roman Catholic Bishop of Leeds from time to time shall be the arbiter of whether such services and the manner of their provision fall within the tenets of the Church"
They argued that this would enable them to operate because of the exemption for Charities under Reg 18 of the Sexual Orientation Regulations 2007which say
"18.-(1) Nothing in these Regulations shall make it unlawful for a person to provide benefits only to persons of a particular sexual orientation, if-(a) he acts in pursuance of a charitable instrument, and (b) the restriction of benefits to persons of that sexual orientation is imposed by reason of or on the grounds of the provisions of the charitable instrument"
From a legal point of view the Tribunals decision seems to me to be very questionable, the Tribunal said (para 21)
"regulation 18 could not be relied upon by the Appellant to permit activity which was no longer permitted, or which was made unlawful, by another regulation. As the Preliminary Ruling made clear, this was because the Tribunal understood regulation 18 to permit discrimination by charities only when their activities did not stray into the areas covered by the other regulations"
Frankly that is a legally fatuous remark and completely circular reasoning since if reg 18 only applies to activities which are not covered by the SOR's anyway then why would any Charity need to rely on reg 18 at all ? Before the comments section of this Blog gets overload I should add at this point that reg 18 is not some sinister " legal loophole" in the SOR's designed by cunning homophobes, it is the standard type of exemption given to Charities in every other area of Discrimination legislation so as to permit Charities(and we are only talking about Charities) to offer specific services to Women/Specific Races/Specific Nationalities/People with specific disabilities etc. If the Charity Tribunal decision stands unchallenged then every other Charity is now subject to every other type of Anti-Discrimination legislation and, incidentally, the commission decision makes it more difficult for there to be specific Charities providing services for Gay and Lesbian people.
However the irony is that even had the Catholic Charities won their case before the Tribunal it would have been a pyrrhic victory. As the Tribunal pointed out local authorities would refuse to deal with an Adoption Agency which was clearly and directly discriminatory in its objects and the Agency in that situation would have had no way to challenge such a refusal by a local authority.
Leaving aside the fact that the potential views of local authorities should have been irrelevant to the decision the Tribunal was supposed to be making which was whether the proposed change in objects was legal or not; the Tribunal was undoubtedly correct in their analysis. That is why I, as Director of the Thomas More Legal Centre have been advising Adoption Agencies for a year that they should amend their objects to read as follows
"The Charity shall not have power to engage in any activity which it knows, or reasonably believes, is contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church; the formal opinion of the Bishop of [ ] shall be final in any question as to what is the teaching of the Catholic Church"
Such a provision in the objects of the Charity would, of course, have prevented them choosing either same sex, or unmarried heterosexual couples, as adoptive parents and they would have had to concentrate on married couples who according to the teachings of the Church (and millenia of human experience) are the appropriate unit to raise and nurture children. Had a local authority then refused to deal with one of the Catholic Agencies then the local authority would itself have been acting illegally by engaging in Religious Discrimination. Why none of the Catholic Agencies even tried this route I do not know. It certainly could not have been any more unsuccessful than the route they did choose. [http://religionlaw.blogspot.com/2009/06/catholic-adoption-agencies-lose-case.html ]

Read More...

Summary only...

Catholic Charismatic Renewal: Dossier

Catholic Charismatic Renewal, which originated in a charismatic event in the USA in 1967, has branches all over the world, including England, Wales and Scotland. Recently the English branch announced that, due to financial difficulties, they would be closing their office at the All Saints Pastoral Centre at London Colney (a facility owned by the Archdiocese of Westminster), and probably ceasing to publish their magazine 'GoodNews' and teaching resources. The Tablet reported (16th May 09)

In the 1980s and early 1990s the popularity of the Charismatic Renewal – the spirituality of which is centred on an encounter with the Holy Spirit – was at its peak, with conferences attracting up to 5,000 people. In recent years numbers have decreased...

A recent conference attracted 1,500.

A picture is worth a thousand words. The picture above tells us a lot about their spirituality and liturgical preferences, and the kind of people who front the organisation: in a phrase, aging trendies. This is clearly an organisation undergoing accelerating decline, but its power to harm the Church has not left it yet.

What it is

CCR is a somewhat nebulous phenomenon. It promotes prayer groups and liturgies of a particular style, and in general a theological attitude of a particular type, through a magazine, education packs, and national and local events. It promotes many good things, but mixes them in with bad or at least dubious or unproven ones. The English website includes Medjugorje among its links to officially approved Marian shrines (Medjugorje is not officially approved); it links to many pro-life groups but also to Amnesty International, which campaigns openly for the legalisation of abortion; it includes official agencies of the Catholic Bishops and non-Catholic 'healing ministries', Christian Zionists, and all sorts of weird and wonderful groups, as well as the usual aging trendy stuff, such as CAFOD and livesimply.

The fundamental problem with CCR is one of style or attitude rather than one of substance. That is not because the substance is good - it is because, like the liberal charismatic Protestantism on which it models itself, there is no substance. While not explicitly denying any doctrines, it inculcates an attitude and a spirituality which is at odds with Catholic tradition and, ultimately, at odds with Catholic doctrine.

How can we pin down the problems?

Identification with Protestantism

It is obvious that CCR is inspired by a certain kind of Protestantism. The inspiration is not simply a matter of learning from non-Catholics in matters of technique - the CCR actually sees itself as part of a 'Pentecostal/Charismatic' phenomenon.

One author in the latest magazine puts it this way:

The outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Azusa Street, Los Angeles, in 1906, saw the beginning of Pentecostalism. This was followed in the 1960s by the Charismatic Renewal in the mainline Christian denominations, alongside the birth of the Independent Charismatic House Churches. This Pentecostal/Charismatic Movement has grown from a handful of individuals in 1906 to a global force of more than 600 million people today. Such a remarkable number means that Christians who have been baptised in the Holy Spirit today represent about one third of global Christianity, and are the fastest growing part of the world-wide church. Whilst there are signs of a slow-down in Western Europe and North America, the rate of growth continues unabated in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. History tells us that renewal movements usually rise and fall, but are we experiencing something different? The time seems to be right for a new look at this amazing Pentecostal/Charismatic Movement.

It would seem useless to say to the author, Charles Whitehead (Chairman of CCR), that Pentecostalism is a group of truly appalling sects, which use the most unscrupulous means to proselytise the least educated Catholic populations they can find, to give them a religion evacuated of even the limited understanding of the Sacraments you would find in Anglicanism. In this article Whitehead identifies more with the second 'C' in CCR than with the first.

The Key Doctrinal Problem:

'Baptism in the Spirit' vs. Sacramental Baptism and Confirmation

Whitehead also suggests, in the above passage - as his Pentecostal friends would insist - that sacramntal Baptism and Confirmation do not constitute true 'baptism in the Spirit'. This is a foundational belief for charismatics, and it betrays the seriousness of the problem. Our Lord explained that 'Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit' (John 3.5-6) and he instituted the sacraments to bring this rebith about. Baptism and Confirmation - note Our Lord's reference to water - objectively give the Holy Spirit to the baptised. It is not a matter of emotion, but metaphysical fact. To say that this is not baptism of the Spirit Our Lord intended is an attack on the Church's whole sacramental system, and a replacement of the sacraments' objective signs with nothing but feelings.

The Charismatic-Pentecostal claim is that what they do in 'baptising in the spirit' is renewing what happened to the Apostles at Pentecost, and to certain others in the Acts of the Apostles - hence the importance of 'speaking in tongues', which is supposed to show that they possess the gifts the early Christians had, but which are not given by the Sacraments.

This position is flawed both in its Scriptural basis and in terms of the Church's teaching. In Acts, the Apostles did indeed receive the gift of tongues at Pentecost, but this is clearly not what is given by 'baptism in the spirit' as practiced by CCR. The Apostles spoke in such a way as to be understood by everyone; charismatics speak in such a way as to be understood by no-one, or possibly just one or two people. Furthermore, the Apostles immediately baptised a vast number of converts, and there is no indication that these converts were immediately given the gift of tongues. Nor is the gift of tongues, or any other special charism, by any means an invariable accompaniment of baptism and or confirmation elsewhere in Acts or in the Early Church.

The teaching of the Church is clearly expressed in the decree of the Council of Florence on Confirmation (Session 8):

The effect of this sacrament is that a Christian should boldly confess the name of Christ, since the holy Spirit is given in this sacrament for strengthening just as he was given to the apostles on the day of Pentecost.

Confirmation is our Pentecost.

The charisms or gifts of the spirit which are mentioned in Acts and in the Letters of St Paul - speaking in tongues, prophecy, healing - are real enough, and have been found from time to time in the history of the Church. But it is a fundamental principle of these gifts, by contrast with the Sacraments, that they cannot be organised: they cannot be called up or passed on at will. You can't advertise a study day and give all attendees gifts of the spirit - 'the Spirit breaths where He wills' (John 3.8). The saints who had these gifts would have been astonished by such a procedure. What is being passed on on these accasions is either a fraud or a natural technique - or a bit of both.

The general emphasis on the experience of the Spirit creates the problem that if Church authorities - parish priests or bishops - impose any limits on what charismatic groups get up to (especially in the liturgy), Catholic charismatics have a tendency simply to leave the Church and join up with charismatics of other denominations. Protestant charismatic and Pentecostal churches in the United States have huge numbers of Catholic converts in them, and this phenomenon has, in a more limited way, been seen in the UK as well.

Liturgical abuses

It hardly needs to be said that typical 'charismatic' Masses and devotions depart from the norms laid down by the Church. The invasion of the sanctuary by lay people, musicians, people being slain in the spirit, people giving personal testimonies etc. is one obvious example; another would be the constant interuption or replacement of the liturgical texts by spontaneous or scripted additions. Charismatics would find it hard to see what the problem is here, but what they are doing contravenes the law of the Church, and their attitude is completely at odds with the Church's attitude towards the liturgy. If it were meant to be a free-for-all we wouldn't have the liturgical laws we have.

For a lengthy treatment of Catholic charismatic liturgies at a conference in the USA, see John Vennari here.

A preference for style over substance

Pentecostalism can be seen as the taking of certain Protestant themes to a logical extreme: a rejection of ritual and formalism (including vestments, the sacraments, even the baptismal formula), and a rejection of intellectualism (including any properly articulated theology). Instead Pentecostal groups rely entirely on a personal connection with the Holy Spirit. Followers think they can tell that the Spirit is with a particular leader because he says so, and tries to demonstrate it in various ways. Preaching is one; others include making odd noises when praying ('speaking in tongues'), claiming miraculous healing powers, and having the ability to mesmerise an audience. Confidence tricksters and stage hypnotists can, of course, do similar things.

The resulting sect is made up of an inner core of people who may feel important because of their role or may be benefitting financially from the sect, and an outer group which often has a high turn-over as people become discouraged, when the extravagant claims of the preacher fail to solve their personal problems, or see through the sham, or hear an even more mesmerising preacher working down the road. These kinds of groups often attract many young people, especially the intellectually unsophisticated, but these young people tend not to become older devotees - as they age they drift away.

CCR is not, of course, guilty of the worst excesses of the Pentecostal movement, and working within the Church the Church's sacramental and intellectual resources remain, at least theoretically, available. But insofar as they claim to be inspired by the Pentecostal/Charismatic tendency in Protestantism, they are travelling down that same road. This places a personal feeling of being 'touched by the Spirit' above any objective sacramental event, and shunts difficult theological questions aside. While claiming that God will solve your problems, and that God can be found where His Spirit can be seen visibly working, they set people up for an exaggerated enthusiasm to be followed by disappointment. This is a road out of the Church for many people.

Style can get you noticed, but substance gives staying power. When Catholics formed by CCR are confronted with real personal difficulties, or real theological objections to Catholicism or belief in God, they are extremely vulnerable.

Presumption

The fundamental claim of the charismatic movement is that they 'have' the Spirit, and people should take notice of them for that reason. It follows that they can't afford to be shy about claiming to be inspired, either personally - having messages from God and so forth - or as a group - experiencing group phenomena such as being 'slain in the spirit', 'speaking in tongues' and so on. After all, if they didn't, no one would have any reason to pay attention to them.

So we find a way of talking which completely lacks the caution and discretion which characterises the Catholic tradition, and in particular Catholic spiritual masters. We read, for example,

The Burning Bush Initiative, grew out of a prophetic inspiration given to Kim Kollins, a leader in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, when she was attending a gathering over a decade ago in Rome. Her experience brought an unplanned extended stay during the next months where she was led by God to remain in Rome and intercede for the Renewal and for the world. Over this time, she felt God tell her to encourage those in the Charismatic Renewal to return to intercessory prayer for a new outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

There is nothing wrong in having an idea, after prayer and reflection, and feeling that perhaps this is providential. This is clearly what happened to Kim Kollins. But by expressing it as it is in this passage, it leaves no room for the thing to be a mistake. Not only are they setting people up for a huge disappointment, when (as is overwhelmingly likely) nothing much comes of it, but in the meantime anyone who has a different idea is implicitly condemned as opposing God's revealed will.

But it gets worse. Fr Pat Collins writes in an earlier edition of GoodNews of a particular prophecy made by a one charismatic leader as though it were a fifth gospel. He explains his approach in deciding which of the spontaneous and mutually contradictory babblings to believe:
Over the years I have heard many prophecies. It is notoriously hard to know whether they come from God or not. However, there are some which have considerable authority because of the circumstances in which they were spoken, the acknowledged giftedness of the people who spoke them, and the way in which they evoked an answering amen of approval in the Christian community. On Pentecost Monday 1975 such a prophecy was given by Ralph Martin in St Peter’s Basilica, Rome, in the presence of Pope Paul VI.

The Church has a very long experience in dealing with alleged prophecies. Are these the criteria used by the Church? No. Has this been assessed and approved by the proper authorities? No. But never mind - Fr Collins believes it because he thinks Ralph Martin has the Spirit, and they supply a theme for the entire issue of Goodnews.

The tradition calls this 'presumption'. The Church has always exercised great caution with regard to private revelations; even the most carefully investigated are said merely to be 'worthy of belief'; Catholics are never required to accept them. We like to think the founders of religious orders were prompted by God act as they did, but it would be absurd to try to argue that an order should be fostered because it is God's will - rather, we see evidence of God's will in the fruits the order brings forth. CCR, by contrast, constantly tells its followers that this initiative or that has been willed by God, and should be supported for that reason. Unfortunatly, we only have their word for it.

A dismissal of tradition

Rather by silence than by objections, CCR dismisses the Church's traditions: liturgical, spiritual, intellectual, cultural. They have no importance for CCR - what is important is what the Holy Spirit has told them since breakfast.

CCR has become adept at selecting quotations from Popes and the tradition which appear to support their case. This is not difficult because all the fathers and doctors of the Church were deeply concerned with spirituality and the Spirit. What is evident, however, is that all of them would be absolutely horrified if they saw and heard what goes on in charismatic services. It is totally alien to their entire conception of the role of the Spirit in the Christian life.

The Catholic Church was not invented yesterday. When we say she was founded by Our Lord we mean really founded, as a historical fact, by the man Jesus, and not simply 'inspired' by Him. That is why the Church's tradition is so important: it is a continuous and living link to Our Lord. The Church's traditions convey to the present day the will of God and the understanding of that will by the Apostles and subsequent generations. It is through her traditions and enormous historical resources that the Church can be truly renewed: this is the course set for the Church by all her great leaders, and particularly by Pope Benedict XVI.

This means nothing the the CCR. As Our Lord said, 'Who does not gather with me, scatters.' (Mat 12.30)

The verdict of recent Popes

Charismatics love to claim that Paul VI and John-Paul II gave them a complete endorsement. The Wikipedia article on the (international) Catholic Charismatic Renewal is one-sided and very favourable to them, and makes this point at length. The truth is rather different. Here is the summary of Papal teaching given in a superb analysis of the movement published in Christian Order in 2000:

Pope Paul VI on Sept. 3rd 1969 at Castelgandolfo referred to phenomena which "not only offend canon law but also the very heart of Catholic worship, since we find them, dispensing with the institutional structures of the authentic, real and human Church, in the false hope of setting up a free and purely Charismatic Christianity, but which is -really amorphous, evanescent and blown about by any passing wind of passion or fashion. " On Sept. 24th 1969: "Many who talk about the Church today say they are inspired by a prophetic spirit. They make risky and sometimes inadmissible assertions, and appeal to the Holy Spirit as if the Divine Paraclete were at their service at all times; they sometimes do this, unfortunately, with an unspoken intention of freeing themselves from the Church's Magisterium, which enjoys the assistance of the Holy Spirit. May God grant that this Presumption of elevating a personal judgement or personal experience into a rule or criterion of religious doctrine may notcause havoc. May God never allow that treating these private opinions as charismatic gifts and prophetic inspirations should lead astray so many good and well-meaning people." On Oct. 25th 1972: "a pretentious charismatic sufficiency will not preserve an authentic vivifying presence of the Holy Spirit in these spiritualistic trends, in which, sadly enough, it is often easy to see dissent or profane mentalities infiltrated. The needs of theChurch are very different."

Pope John Paul I had a lot to say, and said it before his election. His very short life as Vicar of Christ on earth, only thirty-three days, providentially brought to the notice of the world what he had written. Addressing St. Theresa of Avila in his book Illustrissimi he says:

Charismatic experiences are not anyone's private reserve. They may be given to anyone: priests and laymen, men and women. It is one thing though, to beable to have visions, and quite another to actually have them. In your Libro de las fundaciones I find written: "a woman penitent told her confessor that the Madonna often came to see her and stayed talking for over an hour, revealing the future and many other things to her. And as something true occasionally emerged from all the nonsense, it all seemed to be true. I realised at once what it was all about ... but merely told the confessor to wait for the result of the prophesies, to find our for himself about the penitent's way of life and to look for further signs of sanctity in her. In the end ... it was seen that her visions were all fantasies." Dear St. Theresa, if only you could come back today! The word "charisma" is squandered. All kinds of people are known as prophets, even the students who confront the-police in the streets, or the guerrillas of Latin America. People try to set up the Charismatics in opposition to the pastors. What would you say? You who obeyed your confessors, even when their advice turned out to be the opposite of that given to you by God in prayer?"

Our present Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, when he addresses Charismatic groups follows the usual format. There is a kindly greeting. There is a word of pleasure and approval that they have gathered in Rome because their choice of Rome shows that they understand the importance of being rooted in that Catholic unity of Faith and charity which finds its visible centre in the See of Peter. Then he teaches, and the teaching, if analysed, is a series of warnings. In general these are:-

• Fidelity to the authentic teaching of the Faith. Whatever contradicts this doctrine does not come from the spirit.
• Value the gifts which are given in service of the common good.
• Pursue that charity alone which brings the Christian to perfection.

Time and again the Holy Father stresses the need for good leaders and good priests with the requisite theology. But in practice, if these leaders and priests become part of the Charismatic Renewal and do not remain outside it, they become moulded by it, gradually moulded by emotional experiences which overthrow in them that which constituted them a possible safeguard for others. If they remain outside, they carry no weight because these Charismatics are not charismatics in the sense that St. Theresa of Avila was.

Conclusion

A priest writer in GoodNews notes sadly
In many places, and not only in the more developed nations, the charismatic renewal is limping badly, diminishing in numbers and in the power of the Holy Spirit, and even dying.

There is hope, he adds. Yes, there is indeed hope that CCR is dying. The great experiment, which it was 'prophesied' would revitalise the Church, has clearly failed - and not for want of enthusiasm or resources. The Popes have warned us against it and the theological problems it raises are manifest. But it is still active in parishes and dioceses up and down the country, and should be exposed for what it is and opposed. Do not let them lead another generation of impressionable, and increasingly badly-formed, young Catholics down the path of Pentecostalism.

For more on the Charismatic movement within the Church, see John Vennari's description a Catholic Charismatic conference, and some theological implications of the movement, here. There is an excellent Christian Order article here, written by someone who was heavily involved in movement in the UK in the 1990s. This article exposes the techniques and realities of charismatic phenomena and how attractive it can be; it deserves a wider audience.

Read More...

Summary only...

Anti-Life Groups and RC Politicians

Pro-abortionists often say the Church is too concerned over life issues. What is truly amazing, however, is how little concerned the Church is, in terms of its institutions. Pro-Life groups don't find it easy to give presentations in Catholic schools and parishes; many bishops and priests would rather talk about something else in their sermons; little time and money is allocated to life issues in the clerical bureaucracy. Even more amazing, however, and scandalous, is that organisations and individuals can present themselves as Catholic while rejecting the Church's teaching on these important issues. There is obviously a close connection with the 'Justice and Peace' groups which ignore the issue of abortion or even quietly support the promotion of abortion.

The Anti-Life brigade
Click on the names to see our full dossier on each group

Catholics for a Free Choice (CFFC) This group was set up by and continues to be funded and promoted by pro-abortion campaigners to undermine the Catholic Church's opposition to abortion. Its leading members are not practicing Catholics, and it has few links even with dissident Catholic groups or theologians (though feminist-influenced groups tend to be committed to abortion, and link their websites to CFFC). The rhetoric of 'choice' is badly chosen, as they oppose the right of doctors to refuse to carry out abortions, and they oppose giving women with crisis pregnancies information or counselling which includes anything about alternatives to abortion.

All-Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group (APPPLG)/ Passion for Life: The APPPLG is the officially recognised Parliamentary 'Group' campaigning, supposedly, against abortion, euthanasia and so on. Unsurprisingly, it is dominated by Catholic Members of Parliament. It has come as a shock to discover, on closer examination, that the individual views of officers of the APPPLG are not consistently pro-life, and that this ambivalence has found its way into their policy in Parliament, and in the campaign materials produced by a lobbying group, Passion for Life, which the APPPLG set up. Typically, officers of the APPPLG do not oppose legal abortion in principle: they tend to the view that there is simply 'too much abortion'. The Passion for Life campaign postcards, which were distributed in Catholic churches, included the slogan 'Abortion should be rare', an astonishing claim for a 'pro-life' group to make.

The APPPLG and Passion for life can be criticised on pro-life grounds; its members can also be criticised as Catholic politicians, who appear as such in the Catholic Directory, who are clearly dissenting from the teaching of the Church: see below.

Dissenting 'Catholic' Politicians
Only the most prominent are listed here.

John Paul II, continuing the constant teaching of the Church, has reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a "grave and clear obligation to oppose" any law that attacks human life. (Paragraph 4 of the CDF document on The participation of Catholics in political life)

Jim Dobbin accepts abortion when the mother's life is in danger

Lord Alton accepts abortion for the severely disabled.

Claire Curtis-Thomas is 'not against abortion'.

Ann Widdecombe accepts IVF.

John Gummer supported the Civil Partnerships Act

Tony Blair is anti-Catholic in almost every possible way

Ruth Kelly refused to vote against the bill to allow human-animal hybrids

Clare Short supported the hybrids bill

Read More...

Summary only...

Aging Trendies

It is hard to know how to characterise these groups, who dissent on practically every aspect of Church teaching. What they have in common is that they are part of a phenomenon left over from the 1970s, the golden era of dissent, when it seemed possible that the Church would simply abolish clerical celibacy, ordain women, have lay-led Eucharists and in general 'get with it'.

Those who marry the spirit of the age are condemned to become widows. And this is what has happened to these sad people. What is astonishing, and scandalous, is that in certain ways they are still able to use Catholic resources and influence Catholics. For this reason they need to be exposed for what they are.

Click on the names to see our full dossier on each group.

Catholics for a Changing Church formerly 'Catholic Renewal Movement'. A collection of aging 'trendies' who dissent from the Church's teaching on an enormous range of issues: not only sexual morality but sacramental theology, the liturgy, authority in the Church, the ordination of women, etc. etc.. Many of their views on these other issues are present in the background of the single-issue groups, with many of which they have close links. An important part of a network of dissent.

Advent Group This is composed of former Catholic priests and religious, who, having abandoned their vows, now campaign to end celibacy for the clergy, and for their members to be reinstated in pastoral ministry, partly on the basis of views of the priesthood completely incompatible with Catholic teaching. Another part of the network of dissent.

Catholic Charismatic Renewal Big in the 1980s and early 1990s, their bizarre mixture of Catholicism with what they openly describe as Pentecostalism is now firmly on the wane. In continues to do damage, however, by exposing young Catholics to exaggerated and entirely untested claims of healing and spiritual experiences, and fostering a focus on feelings rather than the sacraments and the Church's teaching.

Read More...

Summary only...

Feminism and Homosexuality

Feminism, as an ideology, is clearly completely contrary to the Catholic view of human nature and to Catholic practice. The fact that serious feminists regard an all-male clergy as inherently unjust gives the game away. Amazingly feminists have nevertheless been able not only to enter official Church structures but even exercise an ideological domination of them, through 'Women Word Spirit' and its historic stranglehold on the National Board of Catholic Women.

Just as Catholic women are the special targets of prosletising militant feminists, homosexual Catholics are targetted by militant gay groups which reject the teaching of the Church on sexuality and embrace the gay sub-culture. What is amazing, again, is that they have been able to do this for decades with some measure of official approval.

Click on the names to see our full dossier on each group.

Marriage Care, formerly the 'Catholic Marriage Advisory Service', then 'Catholic Marriage Care'. It is no longer 'Catholic' in its self-description but it is still in the Catholic Directory. Once a worthy organisation dedicated to marriage counseling, now they want to help people in all 'relationships', and undermine the Church's teaching on the nature of marriage and homosexuality. They also promote sex education, of a kind completely at variance with the Church's guidelines. The Chairman of Marriage Care has repeatedly spoken in favour of homosexual unions.

Women Word Spirit (WWS), formerly Catholic Women's Network (CWN). Recently ejected from the Catholic Directory, it still has a stranglehold on the National Board of Catholic Women, an official consultative body of the Bishops Conference of England and Wales, and its quarterly newspaper 'Catholic Omnibus' (which is now to be published only as a download). As Feminists they ceaselessly campaign for women's ordination, and also support abortion. They are part of a network of dissenting groups on the issues of contraception, the liturgy, clerical celibacy, homosexuality, and the role of women in the Church.

Roman Catholic Caucus of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (RCCLGCM)/ Soho Masses Pastoral Council (SMPC)
&
Quest
Two very similar organisations seeking to undermine the Church's teaching on homosexuality. Although neither is listed in the national Catholic Directory (Quest was ejected in 1998 for refusing to 'clarify' its position on homosexual sex) they have considerable success at local level organising Masses and other events with the agreement of bishops and priests. At their events, and in their literature, there is a pervasive assumption that a homosexual couple's sexual relationship is perfectly ok, and that the Church's teaching to the contrary is 'fallible' and wrong. They are supported by a handful of dissident theologians. They campaign to guide or even be put in charge of the pastoral care of homosexual Catholics, a remarkable attempt by the wolf to apply for the shepherd's job.

Catholics for AIDS Prevention and Support (CAPS)/Positive Catholic (successor to 'Catholic AIDS Link'): another organisation promoting dissent about homosexuality. It has close links to RCCLGCM, and is listed in the Catholic Directory. As Positive Catholics it organises an annual retreat in Douai Abbey.

The arguments used by apologists for these groups are examined here.

The Archbishop Romero Trust: an interesting over-lap between 'Justice and Peace' dissent (CAFOD, Progressio etal.) and the homosexual dissent. The Chair is Julian Filochowski, a former director of CAFOD, whose civil partner is Martin Pendergast, the leading figure in the RCCLGCM, SMPC and CAPS. So we find CAPS Masses promoting Romero (or Romero Masses promoting CAPS?) and both being promoted by the Justice and Peace establishment.

Read More...

Summary only...

'Justice and Peace': dissident 'Catholic' groups

Catholics are naturally concerned with Justice and Peace. What characterises these groups is their complete unconcern about the issues of justice and peace about which Catholics have an important contribution to make to the contemporary debate as Catholics, and their fixation on issues - some genuine, some laregely imaginary - which are popular with the spectrum of opinion represented in the pages of the Guardian. So instead of talking about abortion, the lethal exploitation of the embryo, and the destruction of the family, they talk about third-world debt and climate change.

That, however, is not enough for us to include them in this list. For them to be there there must be pretty solid indications that they do not simply ignore Church teaching, but actually reject it. The joining in with the left-liberal establishment's agenda places the leaders of these organisations in a social context in which support for condoms to fight AIDS, contraception, abortion, and 'non-traditional family structures and lifestyles' is simply taken for granted. So with or without some attempts to veil the fact, these organisations reject the Church's teaching on these issues, to a greater or lesser extent.

What these groups are promoting is the same tired old rubbish as the government, the BBC, and secular quangos and NGOs. But they are doing it with Catholic volunteers and Catholic donations, with the approval of the Bishops (they all appear in the Catholic Directory for England and Wales) and therefore with special access to Catholic schools and parishes. This is a scandal and it must stop.

Click on the names of the groups to see our full dossier on each one.

The 'Justice and Peace' brigade.

Catholic Agency For Overseas Development (CAFOD) An official agency of the Bishops' Conference, contrary to its protestations, and to the repeated teaching of the Church, it promotes the use of condoms to combat AIDS. It also has a bizarre habit of employing people who reject the Church's teaching on sexuality in their private lives, or line their pockets at the taxpayer's expense: see a separate dossier here.

Progressio formerly Catholic Institute of International Relations (CIIR) It no longer calls itself 'Catholic' but still wants to milk its Catholic history to undermine Church teaching. It attacks the Church's position on the use of condoms against AIDS, and is also linked to groups which promote abortion.

livesimply, a joint project of CAFOD and Progressio, presents itself as applying Catholic teaching on justice, compassion for the poor and concern for the environment, but instead of doing anything - even mentioning - abortion, practical almsgiving, or anything else distinctively Catholic it wants Catholic parishes to promote low-energy lightbulbs and turning down the heating to 'save the planet'. Their 'ecumenical partner' is 'Christian Ecology Link', which supports not only contraception, but abortion, and even the forced abortions of the Chinese 'one child policy': this is so appalling we have done a dossier on them as well.

Pax Christi, a political campaigning group opposing nuclear weapons, the war in Iraq etc., consistently misrepresenting the Church's teaching on war. Without claiming to be a Catholic organisation in its self-description, it is not only listed in the Catholic Directory but collects money on 'Peace Sunday' in parish churches. It is part of the 'Justice and Peace' establishment which produces much hot air on global poverty while ignoring abortion, euthanasia and the attack on the family.

National Justice and Peace Network, an umbrella group and campaigning organisation working from diocesan offices around the country and promoting the ideas of all the above organisations.

The Archbishop Romero Trust, ostensibly promoting knowledge of the Servant of God Archbishop Romero, it has extremely close links to the militant homosexual groups noted here.

Read More...

Summary only...

Thank you James!

Both for the note of thanks on your blog for what we have been doing on this one, and for this brilliant picture:
James's Rule of Thumb:

If it seems inappropriate to put something in a thought bubble above an Archbishop's head, then it's probably inapropriate to show it to little girls without their parents' consent. Got it? Good.

Like James I find it hard to be charitable and optimistic about this situation.

Oh and by the way, this is the famous mis-labelled diagramme which is in the 'All That I Am' book approved by the Archdioces of Birmingham (under Vincent Nichols) and also by the Government's notorious Teenage Pregancy Unity. What sort of sex education did they get, to think that is a urethra?

And perhaps that is the worst thing about modern life - not just tyranny, but the tyranny of half-wits.

Read More...

Summary only...

CAFOD people

Catholic Aid for Oversease Development (CAFOD) is well known for its dissent from the teaching of the Church on the use of condoms to combat AIDS; we have covered that in a dossier here. But as is invariably the case, this is not a case of faithful Catholics struggling with their consciences, but a bunch of very self-confident and well-paid liberals with no more than cultural and institutional links to the Church hi-jacking a once-Catholic organisation.

A former Director of CAFOD, Julian Filochowski, has caused a series of scandals by his public rejection of the Church's teaching. First, he entered a civil partnership with his long-term boyfriend, Martin Pendergast, who happens to be a militant homosexual activist who spoke at a conference which condemned the Pope as a homophobe. Then the happy couple celebrated their anniversary with a Mass, which until the news broke was to have been celebrated Bishop Crowley, then of Middlesbrough. Finally the same anniversary was the occasion of a book attacking the Pope and the teaching of the Church. See our post here.

CAFOD recruited Dermot O'Leary to head a fund-raising drive, despite the fact that this 'celebrity' is living openly in sin and publicly rejects the Church's teaching on contraception.

It seems that the current Director, Chris Bain (picture), shares a house with a Labour minister, Paul Goggins, and the pair have been caught out helping themselves a little generously to the House of Commons allowances, which are coming under increased scrutiny. It would be hard to think of a neater summary of the problems of the gang running so many Catholic instutions: a little too cosy with Labour, rejecting the Church's teachings, and with their snouts in the trough.

From The Daily Telegraph: Mr Goggins shares the house in south-east London with Chris Bain, who is the director of the Catholic aid charity Cafod and a friend since university.

They have lived together for the past 11 years. For the past three years, Mr Goggins, the MP for Wythenshawe and Sale East, has designated the property as his “second home” and claimed almost £45,000 in expenses for it. He did not tell the Commons fees office that he shared it. 

...Mr Goggins sat on the board of Cafod until June 2003 and was Charities Minister in 2005-06, when the size of Cafod’s government grant rose by nearly a third to £5.7 million. It dropped by a fifth the following year when Mr Goggins moved to the Northern Ireland Office but he said yesterday that he had no role in the funding of Cafod, which dealt primarily with the Department for International Development.

See the full story. Hat-tip to the Muniment Room.

Read More...

Summary only...

Nichols: the sex ed scandal that won't go away

The Times and the left-wing press are trying to tar our newly installed Archbishop of Westminster with the Irish sex abuse scandal. This is a pretty low trick: he obviously isn't responsible for those crimes, and has condemned them. But there is something he is fully and completely responsible for, and that is the deliberate sexualisation of children in Catholic schools. I'm glad to say that, as a result of the Government's increasingly totalitarian drive on sex ed, the issue is being raised more and more urgently: see an excellent long post on the Sensible Bond, a letter from Eric Hester in the Catholic Times, and Jackie Parkes (and here).

What the sex education programme Archbishop has endorsed as Chairman of the Catholic Education Service and as Archbishop of Birmingham does can only be described as grooming children for illegal, underage sexual activity - just as the Government wants it to. The Catholic Education Service's defiance of Church teaching on sex education places it completely outside the Catholic debate. What is going on? Do they think that Catholics could volunteer to be death-camp guards if they were a little less brutal to the inmates than the other candidates for the job?

We have no inside information but we can say this. Bishops bear a responsibility for all the souls in their dioceses. Parents bear a responsibility for the souls of their children. Nothing the CES or the Government can say or do can change that. There is plenty of room in hell.

Matthew 18, ⁶ whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

 ⁷Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

 ⁸Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. ⁹And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

 ¹⁰Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

Read More...

Summary only...

Immodest 'Theology of the Body' condemned

Update: another very good critique of Christopher West has been published here.by David L. Schindler, Provost/Dean and Gagnon Professor of Fundamental Theology at the Pontifical Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family. This again points out that West uses the most revolting and immodest language and clearly fails to grasp the doctrine of Original Sin.

Comment, 17/05/09: this is a real problem - some Catholics who promote the 'Theology of the Body' are so keen to show they are not 'prudes' or 'Puritans' that they end up speaking immodestly and encouraging an attitude to sexuality which undermines purity. Hefner, mentioned below, was a depraved advocate of pornography. Alice von Hildebrand's words here are extremely wise: sex should be treated with sensitivity. The 'intimate sphere' is 'not a topic of public discussion'. It should horrify Catholics that theologians, catechists and Catholic teachers should consider talking about sexual desire and sexual experience with a view to desensitizing their hearers - that is exactly the aim of the radical sexual agenda.

From CFNews: Renowned Catholic thinker Dr. Alice von Hildebrand has criticized Theology of the Body speaker Christopher West, saying his approach has become too self-assured. She criticized his presentations as irreverent and insensitive to the 'tremendous dangers' of concupiscence.

Also cautious of West's remarks on his recent interview with ABC television were Mary Shivanandan and Fr. José Granados, both Catholic authors and theologians.

The news segment showed him calling for Catholics to complete 'what the sexual revolution began.' He also described 'very profound' historical connections between Hugh Hefner and Pope John Paul II.

West spoke to CNA on Friday, claiming the report somewhat sensationalized his views. He also denied several characterizations conveyed by the news story, explaining that he believed Hefner to be right in rejecting 'the disease of Puritanism' but radically wrong in beginning the 'pornographic revolution.'

He had told ABC that Hefner had a 'yearning,' an 'ache' and a 'longing' for love, union and intimacy.

In a Monday interview CNA spoke about West with Dr. Alice von Hildebrand, a Catholic philosopher and theologian who is professor emerita of Hunter College of the City University of New York.

Dr. von Hildebrand said she knew the 'gist' of Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body and believed it was 'very indebted' to her husband Dietrich von Hildebrand's 1927 book 'In Defense of Purity.' She said there is obviously an 'abysmal difference' between the views shared by her husband and John Paul II and those presented by Christopher West.

Reporting that she had seen CNA's follow-up interview with West, Dr. Von Hildebrand was very critical of the speaker.

'My feeling is that Christopher West has become famous because he started discussing the Theology of the Body, which is extremely appealing topic. The difficulty is that, in the meantime, he became so famous that I do believe he has become much too self-assured and has lost sight of the extreme sensitivity of the topic.'

This is 'very troubling' because what she calls the 'intimate sphere' is something 'very mysterious, very profound, something that has a direct relationship with God.'

'My feeling is that his vocabulary and his way of approaching it totally lacks reverence.'

'Reverence is the key to purity,' she told CNA.' The intimate sphere 'is not a topic of public discussion' but is 'extremely serious.'

'It seems to me that his presentation, his vocabulary, the vulgarity of things that he uses are things that simply indicate that even though he might have good intentions he has derailed and is doing a lot of harm.'

She said people should not forget that we have been 'profoundly affected' by original sin.

'In paradise there was perfect harmony between Adam and Eve. There was no concupiscence.'

'After original sin, not only were we separated from God and condemned to losing eternity. On top of it, every single human faculty was affected. Our intelligence was darkened. Our will was weakened. And all of a sudden, we had the dreadful experience of something called concupiscence.

Before the Fall, there was no inner temptation to impurity between Adam and Eve even though they were naked, she explained. After they sinned, the two started to look at one another with concupiscence.

The Fall had consequences that are 'so serious' that it was only the Redemption and the grace of God could remedy.

The fight against concupiscence is 'not an easy process,' Dr. von Hildebrand continued. 'It is something that calls for holiness, which very few of us achieve. It is a sheer illusion to believe that by some sort of new technique we can find the solution to the problem.'

While one can lead a holy life in marriage, she said to become a saint is 'a long and difficult process that calls for a spirit of penance, a readiness to sacrifice.'

'The tragedy of original sin is that all the beautiful male qualities of strength, courage, objectivity, nobility, a chivalrous attitude towards women, degenerated. The danger created by original sin is that many men use their strength and become brutal and abuse women or look at women as mere objects of pleasure.

'Eve was also profoundly affected by original sin,' she added.

'To my mind the conflict between man and woman can only be healed by striving for holiness,' she said. 'There are many things Christopher West does not mention.'

Additionally, she charged that West does not mention the Old Testament figures who fell to sexual sin: David, King of Israel, who was blessed in 'an extraordinary way' but ordered the murder of the husband of a woman with whom David committed adultery.

'Adulteries lead to murder. It is one of the most abominable stories you can imagine,' she said, explaining the Prophet Nathan's rebuke of David led to the composition of Psalm 50.

She said it was upsetting to her as a youth to learn that a young man who prayed for 'the straight and honest heart so that I may serve my people' went on to have 750 concubines.

'How can you be so good when you're twenty, and lead such an abominable life when you're seventy?' she asked. 'As far as I can tell, this is something that Christopher West forgets, in this sphere which is extremely dangerous.'

She reported that a priest friend of hers had told her 90 percent of the sins that men accuse themselves of involve the Sixth Commandment against adultery.

Christopher West's approach makes him forget that sex is 'an extreme danger.' Though sex can be sanctified, that sanctification implies 'a humility, a spirit of reverence, and totally avoiding the vulgarity that he uses in his language.'

'I'm shocked and horrified by the words that he uses. His mere mention of Hugh Hefner is to my mind an abomination.'

Mary Shivanandan, a theologian who authored the book 'Crossing the Threshold of Love: A New Vision of Marriage in the Light of John Paul II's Anthropology,' was also critical of West's remarks.

'The sublime teaching of John Paul II's theology of sexuality is not well served by West's comparison to Hugh Hefner and his playboy bunnies,' she told CNA in a Monday e-mail. 'The late pope had a profound reverence for God's plan for human love, which such a comparison, no matter how well intentioned, can only diminish and degrade.'

Also providing comment for CNA was Fr. José Granados, a theologian who co-authored with Supreme Knight of Columbus Carl Andersen a book on John Paul II's Theology of the Body titled 'Called to Love.'

Fr. Granados said West's suggestion that John Paul II took the sexual revolution a step further was 'highly inadequate and open to serious misunderstanding.' He explained that Puritanism shares with pornography a negative vision of the body, viewing it without reference to the dignity of the person and to God's plan for man.

'It is deprived of its symbolism and its language,' he said. While Puritanism attempts to silence the body and its urges, the sexual revolution exalts them 'as an absolute.'

'Pornography is in no sense an attempt to recover the beauty of the body and sexuality, but a sign of despair regarding this beauty and the possibility of finding meaning in human love,' he said.

John Paul II's Theology of the Body recovers 'the meaning of the body' with reference to love and to man and God, Fr. Granados told CNA.

'The Pope's proposal is not just about sexuality, but about the truth of love as the foundation of the person's dignity and the meaning of reality; and about the family as the place where the person finds himself and his way towards happiness.

'Moreover, one of the results of the sexual revolution is precisely the pansexualism that surrounds our society. We cannot respond with a different kind of pansexualism, with a sort of 'Catholic sexual revolution,' which in the end promotes a similar obsession with sex, even if 'holy'.' [CNA]

Read More...

Summary only...