CATHOLIC RIGHTS

Whom do I follow?

2010-12-08T06:21:00.000-08:00

Well, I have tried. I joined an Advent Preparation group and it was going quite well until Tuesday. We were following guidance leaflets published by the Diocese of Portsmouth. I think my views on the bureaucrats of Portsmouth are well known. They are starting a new church in Portsmouth. The bishop is leading us all into a beautiful land where we will all `bear fruit`. Except of course those people who preferred to stay behind in the safety of a hut. The trouble with these people is that they are afraid to move forward, they are stuck in the past. Well that being the view of those £2,000,000 a year bureaucrats all recruited for their knowledge and support of this great move forward, it is not surprising that those who follow Rome will find obstacles in their path. My real obstacle came in the questions I had to answer in the guidance leaflet. After telling the story of John the Baptist urging his followers to leave him and go to seek Jesus the leaflet continued:-

`We often find ourselves in situations where we are asked to leave behind
things, ideas, and beliefs which we hold dear. Perhaps this can sometimes
feel like a betrayal or a denial of any value in what came before. But
leaving them behind does not mean that they have no value or that they are
not true. It means that we are called ever onward to new things and,
in fact, without those things that came first we would not move forward.
so just like the prophets who came before him, John came to build on what
was past and draw others towards `the One`. The One whose way was prepared
was Truth itself.

Now I do not kknow if my old friend, the Cardinal, who conversed wit5h me in my past posts is around but I hope he is because I have a lot of difficulty with this `wise saying`. I am happy to `move forward`, it is just that I need confidence in the person or persons who are asking it of me. It would seem that John asked his disciples to abandon him and go to Jesus who was Truth itself. Now it seems that some prophet is asking me to abandon Jesus and move on with him.. You see my dilemma. Who is this prophet? Before I abandon a belief I hold dear I will have to be pretty sure of his credentials. We have been bearing fruit for a number of years in the Portsmouth Diocese so let us go over these successes.

1. Since the bishop came to POrtsmouth we have been losing 1,000
Mass goesrs every year. This means that the income from 1,000
people has gone. Recently finding he did not have enough money to keep
his projects going the Bishop hired professional fund raisers at t
the start of his money raising campaign then later just asked
Parish Priests to raise a sum. My own parish was asked to contribute £125,000. There was no attempt to save on the £2 milliion bureaucracy.

2 When the new Religious Education Programmes were brought in they
were hailed as something that would increawse the faith of the
children and enrich the Church. 30 years or so later, 9 out of 10
children who start catholic schools have no faith and come from
non religious homes. Their parents having never been taught the fait in the first place cannot pass it on. 97% of children who leave Catholic Secondary
Schools leave alienated from the Church. The bureacracy will however
ignore this - preferring to boast of the Academic records. Why do
they not seek to improve schools? The answer is found in the
parishes. The efforts to create a broad church where `all ` were
welcome and could `follow their conscience` would be undermined by
proper Religious Education.

3 It was Archbishop Martin of Dublin who recently commented on preparation
for First Holy Communion. He commented on how parents would spend
and indeed go into debt for beautiful clothes for the children yet
when they received HOly Communion thay had been taught nothing on the
Real Presence of Jesus.or the spiritual beauty of the day. Confirmation, he went on, is seen as a graduation from the Church.
His comments for Ireland are more than true for
Portsmouth. This a a diocese which did not celebrate the Year of the
Eucharist because the Bishop felt the Sunday Gathering was the important
thing. So the Tabernacle is deposited corners out of the way
so that Catholics will learn not to genuflect and acknowledge Him. No
doubt this is one of the beliefs of the past Catholics had held dearly
but although the presence of Jesus is still true we must `move forward``.

4 The disrespect for the Blessed Sacrament has led to a shortage of priets.
Is this too strong? Yes, I know, the lack of catholic teaching has
led to a shortage of priests. The values of the secular society
supported by the bureacracy has led to a shortage. There
are many causes but if anyone were to honestly ask the question "HOw
can we solve this, they would look around at diocese tht have done so.
This is never done in Portsmouth and to be fair in any other English
and Welsh Dioceses. Why does Namur in Belgium last year have 35 men
studying for the priesthood? Why is nobody interested?

5 When Humanae Vitae was introduced in 1968 there was a great
commotion and people were encouraged to `follow their consciences`.
It would be fine if they had but soon the contraceptive mentality set
in and those using contraceptives soon became the keepers of everyone
elses conscience. "It is the only thing to do!" say many teachers
as they relate the use of condoms to adolescents. What about adultery
and fornication? What about young girls going for abortions? What about
the misery of young people? There are ready quips given out for those
`moving forwqrd`. "But they come back to Church" What about the thousand a
a year loss of Massgoers. "God will not judge them on this,as longs
as they give to the poor".. Well of course youngsters living together
are noted for ther generosity to the poor. What about the Teachings of
Jesus? "They do not apply today, do they? We have moved on and left
those true but dear beliefs behind"

6 What are the big questions asked in your parish? Is it concern for the
young, the old, the sick. What get most of the `leaders` going is women
priests and married clergy. Well that is why they are leaders. They
have moved forward.

When I look at the Portsmouth Diocese it is a mess. but we are always promised things are happening. We are on the move. New Pastoral Areas are being formed. and I have to be part of a great parish coveirng anytning from 25 to 50 miles.
but I must move forward. Just a joke.

AND SO ENDS THIS BLOG..........

2009-07-08T03:44:00.000-07:00

Because of a new venture I am taking up I have decided that I must give up some activities in my life. My daily viewts, about 70, will have noticed that I am becoming more and more interested in Mary Stuart, the Queen of Scotland. When I was in my twenties I had friends who shared my view that she was a saint and martyr. As time passed on my interest in her diminshed and I had little time in my life as the father of six boys on a modest income to keep it going. When Christine Grahame the Scottish MP made a proposal to move the body of Mary Stuart back to Scotland my interest was stirred again. I am now planning a website devoted to her cause. The history that most people read on Mary follow the lead of those with are either of an anti-catholic leaning or are very Pro-Elizabethan The English and Scottish historians are read but not the French biographers. Agnes Strickland was the first to criticise Elizabeth but this made her very unpopular indeed and her book quikly went out of print. But she points to sources that can be traced. What I need badly is an historian who can help me. He or she will come. I am now setting up the website www.marythemartyr.co.uk. If you have an interest then look in to the site in about a weeks time. My site the Conversion of England will continue - it is quite fascinating what I am findout out.

The Cause of Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots.

2009-07-04T12:55:00.000-07:00

During the whole process of her trial and execution, Mary acted with magnificent courage worthy of her noble character and queenly rank. There can be no question that she died with the charity and magnanimity of a martyr; as also that her execution was due, on the part of her enemies, to hatred of the Faith. Pope Benedict XIV gives it as his opinion that on these two heads no requisite seems wanting for a formal declaration of martyrdom, if only the charges connected with the names of Darnley and Bothwell could be entirely eliminated ("Opera omnia", Prato, 1840, III, c.xiii, s. 10).

We know from Agnes Strickland and French Biographers that Mary moved Darnley to Kirk o`Fields to nurse him from the Small Pox. She splent months at his side, nursing and caring for him. We know of the Ainsley Bodn in which even her half brother Moray was implicated to kill Darnley and let Bothwell rule. On Bothwell we have her letter to the Pope of the day asking him to intervene and dissolve this marriage which was against her will. Darnley and Bothwell can be completely eliiminated.

Adult Faith: What the Pope said at Vespers on feast of St Peter and Paul.

2009-07-03T06:24:00.000-07:00

The words "adult faith" in recent decades have formed a widespread slogan. It is often meant in the sense of the attitude of those who no longer listen to the Church and her Pastors but autonomously choose what they want to believe and not to believe hence a do-it-yourself faith. And it is presented as a "courageous" form of self-expression against the Magisterium of the Church. In fact, however, no courage is needed for this because one may always be certain of public applause. Rather, courage is needed to adhere to the Church's faith, even if this contradicts the "logic" of the contemporary world. This is the non-conformism of faith which Paul calls an "adult faith". It is the faith that he desires. On the other hand, he describes chasing the winds and trends of the time as infantile.

The `Missa Recitata`. or Dialogue Mass.

2009-07-03T05:56:00.000-07:00

Exploring an old Missal I have just come across the `Missa Recitata`. Now I must confess that this is something I never knew about before and about which I believe that many Traditional Catholics should know a great deal more since it was introduced by Pope Pius X. My missal tells me that in the early Church it was custom for the people to join in with the Altar Server in amking the responses and this was a custom which had ceased by the end of the sixteenth century. St Pius X made a strong plea for active lay participation in the liturgy. But it was left to bishops to decide for their dioceses so it seems to have sunk to oblivioon. Yet even the saintly Pius recognised what the bishops had called for at Vataican II, greater lay pareticipation in the Mass. What the committee commisioned to carry out reform did would of course have broken the heart of St Pius X. But yes, there is still a call for greater lay participation in the Tridentine Mass. And those who use the Traditional Mass should be aware of the call of St Pius X and the call of Pope Benedict to helpl him towards reform. We seem to have a stand off position in the Church from both sides. "Not an inch,No surrender". This is unworthy of the People of God and we should be helping the Pope with his reforms.

A Bundle of Beauty

2009-07-02T04:57:00.001-07:00

One of the great consolations of older people is to have grandchildren. I am doubly thankful to God for this little lady Rebecca. After six sons and one grandson it seemed there would never be another Kearney girl. Then Rebecca arrived. At last I have someone in the family who loves to sing and entertain people. She goes to Ballet and tap and enjoys showing me what she has learned so far. She is a sweet, loving and beautiful child. I am sure the world will hear from Rebecca one day - she is so talented at her early age. Thank you God, for this wonderful gift.

Westminster Abbey: a place to worsip God or to fleece the tourists?.

2009-07-01T09:36:00.000-07:00

I visited Westminster Abbey earlier this year. A man at the entrance demanded £12 each for me and my wife. At the end of my visit I felt I had be been robbed. It was just a museum of dead bodies. From the crypt bodies had been brought upstairs and placed at every convenient spot. There was Lord and Lady `something` and Lord and Lady `something else`. 98 percent of the bodies meant nothing to anyone but there were the few. The tyrant Oliver Cromwell had a place in a chapel. I eventually found the chapel of Our Lady. I knew it was the chapel of Our Lady because I managed to squeeze past the tombs of Mary Queen of Scots and Queen Elizabeth I which took up all the space. There was no sight of Our Lady. I decided that if I had an ancestor there I would be making plans to have them removed. I am already making up my mind to have Mary Stuart Queen of Scots moved back to Scotland, or perhaps the Chappel of St Andrew in the Cathedral That was a great idea from Christine Crahame the Scottish MP. The Abbey claim they keep her there to fulfill the wish of her son. But Mary wanted to go back to France. She certainly did not want to lie beside her murderer, Elizabeth. Now the powers at the Abbey have decided on a fresh projecto. To let tourists go to the places above the Abbey where they can display some beautiful artefacts. Just throw a few of the tombs out and they would have plenty room. Then they plan to make some kind of crown above the the Abbey to show its relationship with the monarchs of England. No doubt there will be an extra charge of £12 or so to go up there by elevator. Of course a restaurant will have to be provided so that meals can be available for those who decide to spend the day there. Probably American Tourists. It is all very shabby and disgraceful. The ABbey was built to give glory to God, and only God. The Abbey authorities are turning it into a den of thieves.

A little girl in Rome receiving her First Holy Communion

2009-06-30T06:41:00.000-07:00

This little girl received Jesus for the first time on the Feast of St Peter znd Paul. She kneels to receive Jesus not as a piece of food to be chewed, digested, then disappear but as someone to welcome into her heart to make a lasting abode there and to love and be loved. This is a very personal relationship with Jesus and everything was done to make her feel that this was indeed a very special day.

What is the Body of Christ?

2009-06-29T06:28:00.000-07:00

What is the Body of Christ? Can any group of christians who come together form the Body of christ? Lately my attention was drawn to Colossians 3. Many people when drawn to this chapter immediately go to verse 12 "Put on then, as God`ss cosen ones, holy and beloved compassion, kindness, lowliness, meekness and patience, forbearing one another and, if one has a complaint against another forging each other..........." It is very good reading and one in which we can find comfort. Alas we can also deceive ourselves, which is why despite the emphasis on community in so many Catholic and Protestant Churches the outside world fails to see the Body we are trying so hard to represent. Can any group of Christians form the Body of Christ Yes, but whether that body is a real image of Christ or a blasphemous one we have to read from the first verse. "If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above.........Put to death therefore what is earthly in you; immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatory. On account of these the wrath of God is coming.....But now plut them all away, anger, wrath, malice, slander, and foul talk from your mouth......... What Paul is saying is that you have to `put off the old nature with its practices and have put on the new nature...... If you have not done what Paul asked then you can read from verse 12 onwards and waste your time. Of course we do not want rules. It does not matter what we do despite St Paul or Christ Let us all approach the altar whether we are adulterers, sex abusers, liars, or theives. Whether we are living a life in accrodance with the will of Christ or not. Let us adapt the teachings of Christ to the world and not the world to the teachings of Christ. Rules, forget them. Thus we call ourselves the Body of Christ but do not care how perfect that Body is. How Christlike we appear. This is luke warm christianity. We have confession and the guidance of the Church which has a wisdom beyond our feeble opinions. Let us listen to her.

Retreat for young people at Douai Abbey

2009-06-27T12:34:00.001-07:00

During the weekend of the 18-20 September 2009. Young Catholic Adults (YCA are part of the international Juventutem Federation) will be running a Traditional Retreat at Douai Abbey in the south of England, the weekend will be led by Juventutem Ecclesiastical Assistant Fr de Malleray. Summorum Pontificum must be working - at least in a "brick by brick" fashion, just look at the following:-

-For the first time Young Catholic Adults will be using the main Abbey Church for Mass

-For the first time YCA will be organising a Missa Cantata, sung by the Douai Singers; this will be followed by a Marian Procession

- YCA has booked out the whole of the retreat complex this year, on the advice of Douai Abbey itself, as the monks were so pleased with the YCA retreat last year

Places are limited so please book early

-YCA will have the retreat centre to itself

-There will be a social in the evening
- Fr. de Malleray FSSP head of Juventutem will preach the retreat, all Masses will be in the Extraordinary form
- There will be a Sung Mass (Missa Canta) on Saturday 19th September 09’ at 10am. The choir will be the Douai Singers, in the main Abbey Church, followed by a Marian Procession at 11am (starting from the main Abbey Church) around the extensive grounds of the Abbey (weather permitting, if the weather is poor there will be Marian devotions in the main Abbey Church )
-The weekend will be full-board (except for the Sunday lunch)

How to book

The cost of the weekend will be from as little as 25 pounds for students (or 48-88 pounds for non students) for more details, please see http://www.youngcatholicadults.co.uk/news.htm or email juventutemcatholicam@yahoo.co.uk or ring 07908 105787.

Events Open to the Public

The Sung Mass (Missa Canta) on Saturday 19th September 09’ at 10am followed by a Marian Procession around the extensive grounds of the Abbey at 11am (starting from the main Abbey Church) are open to the public.

There are also a few rooms allocated for all age groups (not just YCA) so please book soon.

There are limited places so please reserve your place early!

Eastenders and Gay Rights: On whose side is the BBC?

2009-06-26T05:33:00.000-07:00

My son came into the room and looked at the screen. Eastenders was on and he remarked "That Christian has become very aggressive!. I had not shared any previous thoughts with him on what was happening in this soap opera. A couple of nights ago, Christian, the gay, was in the company of some Moslems who did not know him. One lady said what a handsome guy he was and was he thinking of marrying. Now Christian was standing there among Moslems but he retorted "When I find my man" "That is all right you can be what you want!" a shocked moslem lady replies. "What do you mean replies Christian. Saed the Moslem boy intervenes. "OK, Christian". "But your mother insulted me for what I am" the now angry Christian replies. Later on Christian is aware of homosexual feelings in Saed and of course they kiss. After the programme I made a comment to the BBC, not a complaint, that perhaps some good manners would not have gone amiss with Christian and I am sure that this rather than the homosexual question would be what people would be thinking about, and I did not think the kiss at the end of this episode would have helped. Anyway I got a reply from the BBC saying that they were about to show the turmoil between a Moslem`s boys faith and his feelings and it was a real life situation they were portraying. Did that include bad manners I asked myself. Anyway the nnext couple of episodes have shown Christian actively pursuing Sae. He is in love you see. Now if this was a heterosexual encounter Christian would have been accused of harrassment. If Christian was a poedophile chasing a child he would have been accused of grooming. But according to the writers natural rules of conduct do not apply to a gay. Now let me try to work on what is going on here. I am sure that not all gays behave in this way so I assume that the BBC are being advised by one of the Gay activist groups who are notorious for their bad manners and believe they have every right to behave in the way Christian is behaving. I cannot say for sure. But one thing I know as far as forwarding gay rights is concerned this is a non-starter.

The Murder of Mary Queen of Scots.

2009-06-25T07:56:00.001-07:00

it is certainly true that at the time of the Babington Plot Queen Elizabeth was feeling insecure. Somehing called a Holy Leage had been started to restore Catholicism throughout Europe and depose Elizabeth and bring England back to the Catholic Faith. One thing is ceretain. Mary had not part in it. When she first came to Scotland she was offered an army by the Earl of Huntley to march on Edinburgh and restore the Catholic Faith in Scotland. This she had refused. She had been physuically sick when she saw her uncle in France the Cardinal of Lorraine, executing Huguenots. In Sctoland to her credit she never once tried to convert anyone at there was one occasion she put herslef at risk in Edinburgh to stop a mob from attacking Catholic churches and homes. What happened in England was that a man called Babington was foolish enough to try to organise an uprising to put Mary on the throne. Elizabeth`s spies went along with him. Elizabeth then had her ministers forge letters supposedly written by Babington which quoted from letters Mary was supposed to have sent. In fact Mary knew nothing about the Babington plot until that gentleman was executed and she found herself on trial. Her letters and belongings were seized and sent to Elizabeth but noghin was found. A show trial had to be put on however if Elizabeth wanted to kill Mary. And what a show it was. Mary was allowed no defence. At Fotheringay Castle she turned to Sir Andrew Melville and said "Alas! How many learned counsellors are here, and not one for me"
Just as in the trial when she was falsely accused of murdering Darnley forged document after forged document were read out. The crown lawyers said that they had the evidence of her own letters against her. She replied "Nay, bring me mine own handwriting, anything to suit a purpose may be put in what be called copies". Not one original minute or cypher was produced against her. When she asked for her secretaries to be called she was refused.
It is to the shame of present day England that there are still historians who actually believe that Mary at Fotheringay Castle had a fair trial. No she was murdered by Elizabeth for her religion. And the contrast between the bigotry of Elizabeth in persecuting catholics and the tolerance of Mary in allowing everyone the right to practice their faith is something that historians also forget. In Scotland there were no religioous wars despite the constant interference of Elizabeth. Elizabeth even though she had imprisoned Mary constantly sent armies and suitable rebels north of the border to ensure that those who favoured Mary among the Lords of Scotland were always defeated. She never intended to release Mary, she planned to murder her.

The Callilng of a Prophet.

2009-06-24T08:51:00.000-07:00

A prophet is someone who is called by God to give a particular message to his generation. Usually the message is not well received and the calling of a prophet in the Old Testament was not given to anyone seeking popularity for even those who were his frinds would distance themselves from him. A prophet today is not someone who goes about shouting `Woe, Woe, the hand of God is upon you". A prophet today is someone who stands up for the Catholic Faith in a very special way. When the modernists took over the Church in England in the 1970`s there were a few prohets around who were told quite bluntly to `Shut up!", and this from those whom they would have expected to support them. People did not want their peace disturbed. How often they were told that "It is in the hands of God" To argue against a priest, to criticise a Bishop was not very charitable. Let us all be nice to one another. In other words many of those who would profess loudly that they were traditional were in fact no better than the modernists. And if today only one in ten children starting catholic schools actually have any faith it wss because they, who should have known better. looked the other way and condemned those who didn`t. Yet someone has to care about our children - but how can you do it in a way that is nice. You cannot. Many catholics know that preparation for Holy Communion programmes reflect little of the love of God in that Sacrament. But they do nothing. Those who speak up they are as ready to condemn as the modernists. No, no, his is a troubleemaker. We are praying - yes that is the comfortable thing to do. But take up your cross? Disturb the community!. Never. I could name a few prophets in our Church. Daphne McLeod stands out as one. But nobody as parish level will speak up for the Catechism of the Catholic Church will they? We must not disturb Father, he is so nice. It is not the thrust of modernists but the fear of traditionalists that has brought the Church in England and Wales into this awful mess.

The Peter Manducator Heresy: long before Trent and Pius VII

2009-06-21T07:23:00.000-07:00

There has, however, been a good deal of confusion upon this point in the minds of some early liturgists, owing to the practice which prevailed of lifting the bread from the altar and holding it in the hands above the chalice while consecrating it. Some degree of lifting, at the words "accepit panem in sanctas ac venerabiles manus suas" was unavoidable and many priests carried it so far that liturgical commentators spoke of their act as "elevare hostiam" (cf. Migne, P.L., CLXXVII, 370, and CLXXI, 1186), but a careful examination of the evidence proves that this was quite a different thing from showing the Host to the people. Moreover, the motive of this latter showing has generally been misconceived. It has often been held to be a protest against the heresy of Berengarius; but Berengarius died a century before, and the statements of writers at the beginning of the thirteenth century make the whole development plain. The great centre of intellectual life at that period was Paris, and we learn that at Paris a curious theological view was then being defended by such eminent scholars as the chancellor Peter Manducator and the professor Peter Cantor, that transubstantiation of the bread only took place when the priest at Mass had pronounced the words of consecration over both bread and wine (see, e.g., Giraldus Cambrensis, Works, II, 124; Caesarius of Heisterbach, "Dialogus", IX, xxvii, and "Libri Miraculorum", ed. Meister, pp 16, 17). To quote the words of Peter of Poitiers "dicunt quidam....quod non facta est transubstantiatio panis in corpus donec prolata sint haec verba "Hic est sanguis'" (Migne, P.L., CCXI, 1245; Pope Innocent III, "De sacro altaris mysterio", IV, 22, uses very similar language). This view, as may readily be understood, aroused considerable opposition, and notably on the part of Bishop Eudes de Sully and Stephen Langton, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury and cardinal. It seems clear that the theologians of this party, by way of protest against the teaching of Peter Cantor, adopted the custom of adoring the Host immediately after the words, "Hoc est enim corpus meum" were spoken, and by a natural transition they encouraged the practice of showing it to the people for this purpose. The developments can be easily followed in the synodal decrees of France, England, and other countries during the thirteenth century. We find mention of a little bell of warning in the early years of that century, and before the end of the same century it was enjoined in many dioceses of the Continent and in England that one of the great bells of the church should be tolled at the moment of the Elevation, in order that those at work in the fields might kneel down and adore.

The Council of Trent - continued.

2009-06-21T06:09:00.000-07:00

Well I have been through Session 22 of the Council of Trent. You can get to the document library on EWTN. I did not find anything there making any specific Canon mandatory. It was of course the whole Tridentine Mass that was mandatory. I did find though one of those anatherma things. If anyone says a priest cannot celebrate mass without the Faithful present let him be anathema. Well I am sure that is not mentioned in Liberal circles. I am now in pursuit of a 12th century heresy which caused the elevation of the Host. I have become more and more convinced over the past week that if people read the documents of the Church instead of the ramblings of `great Theolgians` the Church would soon revive.

What the Council of Trent was about.

2009-06-20T12:43:00.001-07:00

After the ninth century the Roman Mass, now quite fixed in all its essential parts (though the Proper Masses for various feasts constantly change), quickly became the universal use throughout the Western patriarchate. Except for three small exceptions, the Ambrosian Rite at Milan, the Mozarabic Rite at Toledo, and the Byzantine Rite among the Italo-Greeks in Calabria and Sicily, this has been the case ever since.

The local medieval rites of which we hear, such as those of Lyons, Paris, Rouen, Salisbury, York, etc., are in no sense different liturgies. They are all simply the Roman use with slight local variations -- variations, moreover, that hardly ever affect the Canon. The Sarum Rite, for instance, which Anglicans have sometimes tried to set up as a sort of rival to the Roman Rite, does not contain in its Canon a single word that differs from the parent-rite as used by the Catholic Church, with the exception of a commemoration for the king. But some changes were made in medieval times, changes that have since been removed by the conservative tendency of Roman legislation.

From the tenth century people took all manner of liberties with the text of the Missal. It was the time of farced Kyries and Glorias, of dramatic and even theatrical ritual, of endlessly varying and lengthy prefaces, into which interminable accounts of stories from Bible history and lives of saints were introduced. This tendency did not even spare the Canon; although the specially sacred character of this part tended to prevent people from tampering with it as recklessly as they did with other parts of the Missal. There were, however, additions made to the "Communicantes" so as to introduce special allusions on certain feasts; the two lists of saints, in the "Communicantes" and "Nobis quoque peccatoribus", were enlarged so as to include various local people, and even the "Hanc igitur" and the "Qui pridie" were modified on certain days.

The Council of Trent (1545-63) restrained this tendency and ordered that "the holy Canon composed many centuries ago" should be kept pure and unchanged; it also condemned those who say that the "Canon of the Mass contains errors and should be abolished" (Sess. XXII., cap. iv. can. vi; Denzinger, 819, 830). Pope Pius V (1566-72) published an authentic edition of the Roman Missal in 1570, and accompanied it with a Bull forbidding anyone to either add, or in any way change any part of it. This Missal was to be the only one used in the West and everyone was to conform to it, except that local uses which can be proved to have existed for more than 200 years were kept.

This exception saved the Ambrosian Rite, the Mozarabic Rite, as well as a few ancient modified forms of the Roman Rite, such as the Dominican, Carmelite, and Carthusian Missals. The differences in these Missals, however, hardly affect the Canon, except in one or two unimportant rubrics. Since Pius V, the Canon, then, with the very slight retouches under Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI, has been brought back to its original simplicity and remains unchanged throughout the year, except that on a few of the very greatest feasts slight additions are made to the "Communicantes" and the "Hanc igitur", and on one day to the "Qui pridie quam pateretur".

After Pope Pius V, Pope Clement VIII (1592-1605), Pope Urban VIII (1623-44), and Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903) each re-edited the Missal, and a great number of additional Masses for new feasts or for local calendars have been added to it. But none of these changes affected the Roman Canon until Pope John XXIII inserted the name of Saint Joseph and Pope Paul VI made some changes, nearly all of which were rubrical, not textual.

Don Fernand Cabrol; Development of the Latin Mass. Note; `hoc est enim corpus meum`.

2009-06-20T09:12:00.000-07:00

We have, to enlighten us as to this period, several allusions in
contemporary writers; while certain liturgical documents explain, with more
or less exactitude, how Mass was celebrated at Rome about the sixth and
seventh centuries. Other writers of the fifth, and even of the fourth,
century, such as Arnobius and the Jew Isaac, allude to the text of the
Roman canon. Pope Innocent I (401-417) in a celebrated text forbids the
recitation of names (Memento of the living and the dead) at the Offertory
in the Roman canon (as was the Gallican and Oriental custom, and also
probably the most ancient usage). The Popes Boniface I (418-422) and
Celestine I (422-432) attest that the Emperors also were prayed for in this
place.[1] Pope Vigilius, in a letter to Profuturus, says that at Rome the
text of the canon only varies at Easter, Ascension-tide, Pentecost, and the
Epiphany. He sends the Bishop that text of the canon which he believes to
be of Apostolic origin. The authors of the eighth-ninth centuries, Bede,
Agobard, Amalarius, also bear witness to the Roman canon.[2] In a
celebrated
work of the close of the fourth century, sometimes attributed to St.
Ambrose, and which in any case is almost contemporary with him, which is
inspired by his writings, and which belongs to a church of Upper Italy, the
author quotes the prayer of Consecration, which, with a few variants, is
the very text of our own canon. It is of such importance that it must be
given here:

TEXT OF DE SACRAMENTIS

"Fac nobis (inquit sacerdos), hanc oblationem ascriptam, ratam,
rationabilem, acceptabilem, quod figura est corporis et sanguinis Jesu
Christi."

Qui pridie quam pateretur, in sanctis manibus suis accepit panem, respexit
in coelum ad te, sancte Pater omnipotens, aeterne Deus, Gratias agens,
benedixit, fregit, fractum que apostolis suis et discipulis suis tradidit
dicens: accipite et edite ex hoc omnes: hoc est enim corpus meum, quod pro
multis confringetur.

Similiter etiam calicem postquam coenatum est, pridie quam pateretur,
accepit, respexit in coelum ad te, sancte pater omnipotens, aeterne Deus,
gratias agens, benedixit, apostolis suis et discipulis suis tradidit,
dicens: accipite et bibite ex hoc omnes: hic est enim sanguis meus.

Ergo memores gloriosissimae ejus passionis et ab inferis resurrectionis, in
coelum ascensionis, offerimus tibi hanc immaculatam hostiam, hunc panem
sanctum et calicem vitae aeternae:

et petimus et precamur, ut hanc oblationem suscipias in sublimi altari tuo
per manus angelorum tuorum sicut suscipere dignatus es munera pueri tui
justi Abel et sacrificium patriarchae nostri Abraham et quod tibi obtulit
summus sacerdos Melchisedech.

ROMAN CANON
. . .

Mass in the Second Century.

2009-06-20T08:39:00.000-07:00

The testimony of St. Justin in the middle of the second century must be
specially noted, since it is an actual description of the Christian
assembly:

" As for us, after having washed him who believes and has joined himself to
us (Justin has just described Christian Baptism), we lead him to that place
where are assembled those we call our brothers. With fervor we offer
prayers for ourselves, for the enlightened[6] (him who has just received
the
light of Baptism), for all the rest, wherever they may be, in order to
obtain with the knowledge of the Truth, the grace to practice virtue, to
keep the commandments, and thus to merit eternal salvation.

"When the prayers are ended we give each other the Kiss of Peace. Then to
him who presides over the assembly of brothers are brought bread and a cup
of water and wine mingled. He takes them, and praises and glories the
Father of the universe in the Name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; then
he makes a long thanksgiving for all the benefits we have received from
Him. When he has finished his prayers and the thanksgiving, all the people
present exclaim: Amen! Amen is a Hebrew word meaning 'So be it.' When he
who presides has made the thanksgiving, and when all the people have
answered, the ministers whom we call deacons distribute to all those
present the consecrated bread, the consecrated wine and water, and they
carry them to those who are absent. We call this food the EUCHARIST, and no
one can have part in it unless he believe in the Truth of our Doctrine;
unless he have received the bath for the remission of sins and
regeneration; and unless he live according to the precepts of Christ. For
we take not that Food as common bread and common drink. Just as by virtue
of the Word of God, Jesus Christ our Savior took flesh and blood for our
salvation, thus the Food consecrated by the prayer formed of the very words
of Christ, that Food which nourishes by assimilation our own body and
blood, is the Flesh and Blood of Jesus incarnate. Such is our Doctrine. The
Apostles, in their memoirs which are called Gospels, relate that Jesus
Himself announced these things to them. He took bread and, having given
thanks, said to them:

" 'Do this in memory of Me: This is My Body.' In the same manner He took
the chalice, and having given thanks, He said to them: 'This is My Blood.'
And to them alone He gave it. The evil spirits have imitated this
institution in the mysteries of Mithra: bread and a cup of water are
presented in the ceremonies of initiation, and certain formulas are
pronounced which you know, or which you may know."[7]

WHAT DID ST AUGUSTINE REALLY SAY ON CHEWING AND EATING THE BODY OF CHRIST.

2009-06-20T06:28:00.000-07:00

He is quite
right in rejecting any material eating of Christ’s Body in the sense of those at
Capharnaum: “They received it (Christ’s statement) stupidly . . . and thought
that the Lord was going to cut off some particles from His Body”
(In Psalm 98, n. 9). This is the only error he singles out and rejects.
(In Joann., tract 27, n. 12; De Doctr. Christ, I c.) The eating with the heart, not
with the teeth, is exactly what the Church demands of the communicant today.
That is, we must approach the Holy Table with acts of faith, hope, love, etc., if
our communions are to be fruitful to us. Though our Lord under the species of
bread is really received through the mouth into the breast of the communicant,
though there is a real eating of the species, still the Body of Christ cannot be
acted upon or altered by the digestive organs, and in that sense it is by the soul
alone that Christ is assimilated to us and His Body in this sense may be said to
be eaten in figure. Most decidedly this spiritual eating does not exclude the
real reception of Christ’s Body, for in the very passage from which this
objection is drawn St. Augustine insists on the duty of adoring the Body of
Christ there present. His one end is to exclude all dismemberment of the Body
of Christ, and to explain that “He is not consumed by bites” (In Joann., tract
27, ff - 3). Again: “You think that I am going to make parts of this Body which
you see and that I am going to rend my members and give them to you,” Christ
replies, not by a denial of our reception of His Body, but, while maintaining the
integrity of the Body, by a spiritual eating. “And so He shortly solves the great
question of His integrity let them eat life-let them drink life . . . and intact is
life if what is visibly received in the Sacrament, in its very truth
(in ipsa veritate) is spiritually eaten and spiritually drunk.” “Of His Body and
Blood He has given us a healthful refection” (Sermon 131, n. I, etc.).
Against the interpretation of a spiritual eating, as opposed to a real reception
of Christ’s Body, is the insistence by St. Augustine on Communion for infants. A
mere material eating in this case would be useless, and as spiritual eating by
faith is impossible, it must be a sacramental eating by the real presence of
Christ in the Eucharist. In another place (In Joann., tract 27, n. ii) he seems to
understand by spiritual eating an approach in innocence to the Altar. “See,
therefore, brethren, eat spiritually the heavenly bread, bring innocence to the
altar.” Surely the following passage shows that this eating with the heart in no
way excludes in -the mind of St. Augustine a real eating of Christ’s Body
through the mouth. “We receive with a faithful heart and the mouth (ore)
the Mediator of God and man, the Man Christ Jesus, who gives us His Body to be
eaten, and His Blood to be drunk, although it may seem more horrible to eat
human flesh than to destroy it, and to drink human blood than to shed it
“ (Contra advers. leg. et prophet. 1-2, n. 34).
Some assert that St. Augustine teaches that the bread and wine are mere signs
or figures of Christ’s Body and Blood. To substantiate such an interpretation
the following passages are set forth: “For the Lord did not hesitate to say, ‘This
is My Body,’ when He gave a sign of His Body” (Contra Ardmant., chap. 17, n.
3). “The figure of His Body and Blood He commended and delivered to the
disciples” (Enarr. in Psalm iii. n. i). “As therefore in some manner the
Sacrament of the Body of Christ is the Body of Christ, the Sacrament of His
Blood is the Blood of Christ, so the Sacrament of faith is faith “
(Ep. xcviii., n. 9). Let us say at once that this last passage neither affirms nor
denies the real presence. A comparison is made between the Eucharist and
Baptism, the Sacrament, of Faith, under a special aspect, viz., that just as
Baptism gives faith and so may be called faith, so the Sacrament of the Body of
Christ may be called the Body of Christ because it incorporates us with Christ,
makes us members of His Mystical Body, and is therefore the Body of Christ.
Ostensibly the comparison it according to the res or virtus, i.e. the effect of
the Sacrament.
To understand in what sense the Eucharist is a sign or figure of the Body and
Blood of Christ after the mind of St. Augustine, we must remember that for St.
Augustine the word sacrament was the exact synonym of sign. In the fourth
century it denoted the visible element in the Eucharist, the bread or species
which is visible. We do not touch or break, etc., the Body of Christ, but the
species of bread beneath which the Body is present. Hence it is not surprising
that St. Augustine should say the Sacrament of the Eucharist is the sign of His
Body. Many passages could be quoted to show that St. Augustine understood the
word Sacrament in this sense, e.g. “Take away the word, and what is the water
but water? The word comes to the element (water) and it becomes a sacrament
“ (In Joann, tract 83, n. 3)- “ Signs when they pertain to divine things are
called Sacraments” (EP. 138, n. 79. De Doctr. Christ. 111. 13). “The Sacrament
is

THE YEAR OF THE PRIEST

2009-06-19T11:33:00.000-07:00

Jesus Christ, posess your preists fully and completely so that they are able to follow Your Holy Will and fulfill your desires. Let the inspiration of your earthly life be their desire and like you may their life be a true life in God and You most Holy Trinity provide them with the fullness of Your Grace. Most Holy Spirit lead them in everything and everywhere be their power and light.
Let all their undertakings be directed towards God`s Glory and all of their being become an incense of Your Church.
Let them teach only the Truthand let the Holy Spirit be their only comforter and companion.

Give particular help, O Most Holy Trinity to ......... and You, Most Holy Virgin, obtain for him the grace to be ALL YOURS - Totus Tuus.
My belobed God, inflame our hearts so that devoted to you without limit, we would desire to do only Your Holy Will and full of Holy Joy become the bearers of your Love.
Heavenly Father, spread over the whole earth and over all souls Your Most Holy Will and may your Divine Mercy and Forgiveness inflame all hearts to serve You.
Take care particularly of Britain, but also over the whole world so that Your Peace is sought and recognized, and Your Law rules the world. Lead everyone to unity and their spirit and hearts to be one in You. Amen.

The picture and prayer come in a card available from Sacred Heart of Jesus and St Cuthbert, Mill Street, Bedford, MK40 3EU. Tel. 01234 226901 www.ppb.org.uk

A question asked by a film by the person who sacked Miss California because she diaprroved of same-sex marriage.

2009-06-18T13:46:00.000-07:00

"Can the love between two people ever be an abomination?" the film synopsis asks. "Is the chasm separating gays and lesbians and Christianity too wide to cross? Is the Bible an excuse to hate?"

The answer is `NO`. All Christians want is the right to disagree. But the hate and provocations of Gay activists does not allow this. Their hate will not allow Christians the right to conscience.

It is time the Jews removed their racist attack on Pope Pius XII in their Holocaust Memorial. It is an insult to the Jews who suffered.i

2009-06-18T12:10:00.001-07:00

The Jewish Community Should Rethink its Attitude Toward Pius XII

By Sister Margherita Marchione

(June 1, 2007)

As the Vatican moves toward announcing the beatification of Pope Pius XII, some prominent American Jewish leaders continue to insist that the Church should desist from that long-overdue action. They claim that Pius was guilty of not doing enough to prevent Hitler's genocide of Jews during the Holocaust. Even putting aside the impertinence of people from outside the Catholic faith like Abraham Foxman, executive vice president of the Anti-Defamation League, or Seymour Reich, past chairman of the International Jewish Committee on Interreligious Consultations, presuming to dictate to the Vatican whom the Church can or cannot beatify, the charges they levy against Pius XII are simply untrue. In reality, the wartime pope did far more to save Jews than did other leaders of the day, including people like Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, who, unlike Pius, had enormous military assets at their command. Yet for some incomprehensible reason, it is Pius, the only world leader who made sustained efforts to save Jews during the Holocaust, who is scapegoated for the world’s failure to act forthrightly in the face of evil. In an effort to counteract the inaccuracies of some historians, I have gathered documentation that proves how outrageously incorrect are the misrepresentations about Pope Pius XII’s so-called “silence” and “anti-Semitism.” In my book, Did Pope Pius XII Help the Jews? (Paulist Press, 2007), I proved that Pius XII was neither silent nor anti-Semitic. Just consider the testimonials of Jewish leaders of his day thanking him for his efforts, and the gratitude the 5000 Jews saved during the Nazi occupation of Rome evince for the Pope. They understood that the Pope had to be prudent while moving behind the scenes to protect as many Jews as he possibly could. Had he taken a more public and provocative stand, he would have infuriated Hitler and invited Nazi retaliation against the Vatican; thereby endangering the lives of thousands of Jews who, at his direction, were hidden in 155 convents and monasteries in Rome alone. In reality, Pius XII was a saintly man, a man of peace and compassion. He condemned strongly the anti-Semitic persecutions, the oppression of invaded lands and the inhuman conduct of the Nazis. He was a champion of peace, freedom, human dignity. He encouraged Catholics to look on Christians and Jews as their brothers and sisters, all children of a common Father. For his part, Pius was totally committed to playing the role of universal pastor, the kind and loving father to all victims, regardless of their religious background. Many people who dedicated themselves to the cause of rescuing Jews during those terrible years paid tribute to the efforts of Pius XII. For example, John W. Phele, executive director of the U.S. War Refugee Board, wrote just after the war ended in 1945; “The Catholic clergy saved and protected many thousands and the Vatican rendered invaluable assistance to the Board and to the persecuted in Nazi hands.” Sir Francis Osborne, a non-Catholic British diplomat in the Vatican from 1936 to 1947, had this to say (The Times of London, May 20, 1963): “…Pius XII was the most warmly, humane, kindly, generous, sympathetic and, incidentally, saintly character that it has been my privilege to meet. …Without the slightest doubt, he would have been ready and glad to give his life to redeem humanity from its consequences. And this quite irrespective of nationality or Faith.” Consider Pius’ own words during those terrible days. In response to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s letter of December 31, 1942, the Pope expressed his readiness to collaborate with him to achieve peace and “to do everything in Our power to alleviate the countless sufferings arising from this tragic conflict (January 5, 1943).” President Roosevelt wrote on August 3, 1944, to Myron C. Taylor, his personal representative at the Vatican; “I should like you to take the occasion to express to His Holiness my deeply-felt appreciation of the frequent action which the Holy See has taken on its own initiative in its generous and merciful efforts to render assistance to the victims of racial and religious persecutions.” Or consider that on June 25, 1944, Pius XII telegraphed the following protest message to Admiral Horthy, the pro-Nazi ruler of Hungary in which he spoke of the sufferings endured by hundreds of thousands “on account of their national or racial origin by a great number of unfortunate people belonging to this noble and chivalrous nation. ... We appeal to your noble feelings, in the full trust that Your Serene Highness will do everything in your power to save many unfortunate people from further pain and sorrow.” In response to the inaccurate and unjust statement by Shmuley Boteach on April 15, 2007, in the online edition of Jerusalem Post, and that of April 17, 2007, by Etgar Lefkovits, I submit the following testimony published in The Palestine Post, (the present Jerusalem Post), April 28, 1944, headlined “A Papal Audience in Wartime.” It was signed by a “refugee”; a footnote states that the article's author arrived in Palestine on the ship Nyassa. This article, published by a young German Jew in The Palestine Post, points up Pope Pius XII's appreciation for the “Chosen People.” It is significant because it shows the attention and great love with which the Pontiff regarded the Jews. During an audience with the Pope, the young Jew told Pius XII about a group of shipwrecked Jewish refugees, who were then starving in a prisoner of war camp on an island in Greece. The Pope listened carefully and then said to him, “You have done well to come and tell me this. Come back tomorrow with a written report and give it to the (Vatican) Secretary of State who is dealing with this question….My son, I hope you will always be proud to be a Jew!”…. Pius XII lifted his hands to bless him, then stopped, smiled, touched the author's head with his fingers, and lifted him from his kneeling position. Documents show that renowned Jewish contemporaries of Pius XII strongly defended him—among them, Israeli Foreign Minister Golda Meir: “When fearful martyrdom came to our people in the decade of Nazi terror, the voice of the Pope was raised for the victims.” Nor can Albert Einstein’s statement (Time Magazine, 1940) be ignored: "Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing the truth." Jewish historian Pinchas Lapide tells how Pope Pius XII sent his Papal Nuncio in Berlin to visit Hitler in Berchtesgaden to plead for the Jews. That interview ended when Hitler smashed a glass at the Nuncio’s feet. From Hitler’s reaction, the Pope was convinced that public pronouncements would have sealed the fate of many more Jews. Indeed, after this incident, Hitler, who often raged against the Pope to his henchmen for protecting Jews, conceived a plot—fortunately never realized--to kidnap Pius XII from the Vatican to Germany. Frankly, I am at a loss to understand why modern Jewish leaders like Foxman and Reich are so ready to disregard the testimony of great predecessors like Golda Meir and Einstein, who went out of their way to praise Pope Pius XII. Whatever the reason, I implore Jews of good will and open minds to take another hard look at the evidence concerning the wartime Pope. If they do, I am convinced that they will come to the same conclusion that I have; that Pius XII is blameless of the charges against him. Indeed, Pius deserves to be acclaimed as a “Righteous Gentile” for his courageous efforts that saved thousands of Jews from certain death, rather than being scorned as a moral failure unworthy of beatification. Margherita Marchione, PhD, a resident of the Villa Walsh convent in Morristown for 72 years is author of ten books on Pius XII, including:Yours Is a Precious Witness: Memoirs of Jews and Catholics in Wartime Italy; Pius XII: Architect for Peace; and the just released Did Pope Pius XII Help The Jews? Paulist Press, 2007. Her e-mail is Sr.Margherita.Marchione@ATT.NET

Liberal Hypocricy at its Worst

2009-06-18T05:41:00.000-07:00

This is how the Blessed Sacrament is paraded through the streets of Austria. No monstrance, no dignity. I suppose this will be called soldiarity with the poor. OK I am biased so let me examine the fruits of this poverty approach to the Catholic Faith. At the same time as this is hjappening the Austrian Bishops go to Rome to plead for their Church. Having removed all knowledge and love of the Catholic Faith from their young, having allowed Feminism with it s fairytale theology to flourish, having abused the Mass in every possible way, they plead that they have no priests
But of course they are not to blame. It is that Vatican who are responsible for not allowing married priests and women priestsf. What hypocrites. Of course, the Vatican must not point out those diocese in the Western world, especially in America, where vocations are blossoming despite the state of modernists diocese alongside them. The other mark of a liberal is a swollen head and a pride that if things go wrong it is somebody elses fault. I hope their meeting in the Vatican was fruitful - becuase fruit they have not borne for forty years.

The Hocus Pocus Insult from a Deacon.

2009-06-17T09:45:00.000-07:00

Let me clarify what I have been talking about in the last few blogs. Here is an extract from a sermon during the feast of Corpus Christi.

The actual words of consecrationare when the priest asks that the Holy Spirit blesses and sanctifies the gifts so that they may become the body and blood of Christ. It is not when the priest says the words of the Last Supper "TAke this and eat it this is my Body" These are the words of distribution.
Father Bernard Haring the great priest Theologian said "It is not we priests that consecrate, such that what was bread becomes the presence of Christ This mystery takes place on the occasion of the epiklesis (by the power of the Holy Spirit)

Since the spirit consecrates within the community, if one person presides at the Eucharist, it is simply as the community representative, not as Christ`s.

I must confess that having heard the above I had to leave without hearing the rest of the sermon. Never before have so many lies come from a pulpit. I returned and at the Consecration when the bells rang and the priest knelt to adore the Jesus now presnt in the altar I uttered allowed for others to hear "My Lord and my God" as millions of people have done for hundreds of years. In fact there was a dispute in the 12th century about whether the bread was not changed into Jesus until the wine had been consecrated. It was at this time the host and chalice were ordered to be raised, the host to show that, yes, this was the Body of Christ. It has been the teaching of the Church for hundreds of years that it is when the priest says "This is My Body" that the bread is changed. That this is a novel idea put forward dishonestly to suit what some people today want the Church to be is demonstrated by the fact that in the Latin Mass the invocation to the Holy Sprit is made before the washing of the hands in preparation of the sacrifice. So it is over a thousand years apparently since we have had a valid Mass. And may I emphasise that theologians do not decide what the Church should teach. Jesus gave the ministry to the apostles and disciples and these passed their ministry on to bishops and priests - not theologians. Theolgians are there to explain revealed truth not to decide revealed truth. The attack on the priesthood is disgraceful. A statement is pulled out of thin air "Since the spirit consecrates within the community..." What does that mean. Obviously we should know but we do not. "But the person who presiddes does so on behalf of the community and not Christ". This shows an amazing ignorance of scripture and the early Church. When Paul founded a Church he would immediately appoint Elders, these were the people who presided and Paul was at pains to tell Timothy that although he was young he should remember that hands were laid upon him by the other Elders so that he could preside. When the Corinthians wanted to appoint their own elders they were chastised by Pope Clement in 96 AD. "You cannot remove those who have been appointed by the Apostles and other emminent men" So they were far from being just represntatives of the community. Indeed although many were married they were required to practice celibacy as the Jewish priests were required who made sacrifice, but more this celibacy was to be permanent. Thus they were not just one of the community. This was revealed by the Council of Elvira in the 4th century when a call was made to relax celibacy. "We cannot change a custom handed down by the Apostles" What the Church of Pope, Bishops, and priests, teach is that the priest acts `in persona christi`. It is Christ who is the priest and the victim. Of course, a priest as a man cannot change anything, but the insulting remark made in another part of the sermon about `Hocus-pocus`. is contemptible. The preacher has to decide whether he is a ctholic or not. If not, he should leave and not engage in destroying the faith of others.

Learn to write rubbish. Become a Liberal Catholic.

2009-06-16T06:45:00.000-07:00

he pope
by Nicole Sotelo on Jun. 11, 2009 Young Voices
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF versionPope Benedict has declared June 19 as the beginning of the Year of the Priest. He has proclaimed that “without priestly ministry, there would be no Eucharist, no mission and even no church.” I hate to be the one to inform him, but Eucharist, mission and church existed long before the rise of priesthood. (Well, she must be right, must she not. Forget about the sending of the 12 and the 72. Forget about Paul to Timothy. the breaking of bread in the early church, and the laying on of hands by ELDERS, forget about Clement telling the Corinthians that they have to accept the elders appointed by the apostles and other eminent men, Forget about St Ignatius of Antioch and the Papacy, forget about Peter at Pentecost speaking up for the other, now what was that number, o yes 11, The Pope would not know about these things)

The emergence of the clerical structure eventually led to a division of the Christian faithful into “clergy” and “laity.” In the early years of Christianity’s emergence, however, Paul reminded Jesus’ followers, “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).
(This quote is a stock answer to everything it is especially loved by feminiests, it just means that in christ we are one, although in the world we have different roles)
After the rise of ordination and priesthood, there develops a hierarchical order, it , they still exist} among the faithful. The word “ordination” derives from the Latin “ordinare” which means “to create order.” It developed from the Roman usage of the words “ordines” that referred to the classes of people in Rome according to their eligibility for government positions. (Nice to know but irrelevant. As we have seen Christ established the Hierarchical, but hush we must not tell the Pope that)

The laity became “dis-ordered” from the clergy. The word “laity” originates from the word “laikoi” that referred to those in Greco-Roman society who were not “ordered,” or “ordained” within the established political structure. The word “clergy” comes from the word “kleros,” meaning “a group apart.” (Priests are in fact the spiritual head of the community. Paul took great care in appointing Elders to lead the people)

While many Christians continued to minister within the church and even some women carried the titles of deacon, priest and bishop, most carrying this title were part of a limited group of men commissioned within the context of a particular socio-political and religious order. (So there we have it women who wer4e bishops and jpriests, of course, there were. What did the rest do? Nothing. Perhaps of course they were families who worked for a living, mothere who cared for their children, people who travelled as part of their job. Maye everyone could not down tools and become a ministry)

This endured until 1964 when the Second Vatican Council reminded the church that the role of minister, or priest, was not limited to the ordained, but was a call to all the baptized. (Were not the members of the Society of ST Vincent de Paul, the Legion of Mary, the Young Christian Workers, The Catholic Evidence Guild, catholic treachers in schools and colleges, Nunsaand brothers working in the missionary lands and at home running missioons, were they not doing then a ministry, sorry I am letting the facts interfere with the story, you cannot do this with liberals) )The document, Lumen Gentium, proclaimed that the laity were “made sharers in the priestly, prophetical and kingly functions of Christ; and they carry out for their own part the mission of the whole Christian people in the Church and in the world” (31). (Just what many of the laity were already doing, but Lumen Gentium also recalled the hierarchical structure of the Church. At not time was there any contradiction between the role of the laity and the role of the ordained ministry.
It is sad that the lay apostolate has almost stopped despoite sall these brave liberal words and people use their ministries only within the church to distract others from the Mass.
Priesthood, which arose out of the foundation of the early ministries of Jesus’ followers, was now returned to all Jesus’ faithful. All people are called to ministry again. All Christians are meant to share in the prophetic, sovereign and, yes, even priestly roles within the mission of the church. (Again it was the other roles that arose out of the priesthood, "When we eat this bread and drink this cup are we not in Communion with the Body and Blood of Christ? asked St Paul. In other words we are in communion with the sacrifice of Christ and the priest like St Paul officieates at this Calvary in our time `in persona Christi` Also mentioned in Lumen Gentium).

So while the pope is exhorting ordained priests to reflection in this Year of the Priest, the call goes out to all of us to reflect on how we are living out our ministry in the church and world. Yes, why single out these men who have given up marriage and eathly posessions to serve Christ every moment of their lives? Why single out men who are always there as our spiritual fathers helping us with our families and in all those times we need the closeness of God. We can do without the Mass thank you. Nicole is there to lead us)

I wouldn’t worry about telling the pope that Eucharist, mission and church existed long before the priesthood, nor that the Year of the Priest should really be a year dedicated to all the laity. Instead, we need to understand this ourselves. (And perhaps a little study of the early Church would help)

The Year of the Priest is an opportunity for the entire Christian faithful to reflect on priestly ministry, and in so doing, to claim our own. (What a load of rubbish)

Nicole Sotelo is the author of Women Healing from Abuse: Meditations for Finding Peace, published by Paulist Press, and coordinates www.WomenHealing.com. A graduate of Harvard Divinity School, she currently works at Call To Action. (Ah, yes. A `theologian )`

Nicole Sotelo's blog
Nicole - fantastic! Utterly
Submitted by Johanna Hatch (not verified) on Jun. 11, 2009.
Nicole - fantastic! Utterly fantastic!

reply
Yes, it is, indeed, utterly
Submitted by Patricia Mac (not verified) on Jun. 13, 2009.
Yes, it is, indeed, utterly fantastic that any journalist purporting to write for a Catholic publication - however loosely "Catholic" it may be - should be so absolutely ignorant of the facts about Christ and His Church.

What a load of ignorant drivel. As a layperson I have quite enough to do, thank you very much, taking Christ and the truths of the Faith into the world of home, work and leisure, without being prancing about the sanctuary as well.

Get a life, you lot - or more to the point, get a (truly Catholic) education.

reply
This is such a marvelous,
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Jun. 11, 2009.
This is such a marvelous, brief summation of the evolution of service ministries within the faith community. I recommend George Wilson S.J.'s book, Clericalism: the Death of Priesthood, for further development of the reality of the Priesthood of the Baptized and how religious clergy are called to be of service within, not above, the community.

reply It is a slap in the face to
Submitted by Kate W (not verified) on Jun. 11, 2009.
It is a slap in the face to laity and vowed religious to say that "without priests there would be no Church, no mission . . . " Let's hope he meant it jocularly. Many of the Church's most famous missionaries--Brother Damian, Mother Teresa, St. Francis of Assisi right off the top of my head--have not been priests, even when they were celibate men and could have chosen to do so. Clearly the church exists, the Word of God is spread through mission and increasingly, the Body of Christ is broken and shared even when there are no ordained men around.

I hope the Year of the Priest is used as an opportunity to support priests who minister for justice within and without the Church, and that we laity will reach out to the priests in our midst to share our concerns, joys and lives with them. Instead, I fear it will be used in many parishes--by laity and ordained--as just another way to draw the line between us and them.

reply
at baptism we are called a
Submitted by P (not verified) on Jun. 11, 2009.
at baptism we are called a royal priesthood, a people set apart; nuff said!!

reply I think the Holy Father meant
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Jun. 13, 2009.
I think the Holy Father meant it with the idea that the Church is like a Body, and a Body needs all of its parts, especially a head. And Catholic teaching infallibly states that it is through the Ministreial Priesthood bestowed through the Sacrament of Holy Orders that we have the Eucharist, the life blood of the Church. You can break bread with whomever you want, but only a Priest can change it into the Body of Christ. Regarding the saints mentioned; St. Francis once said thatif he saw a priest and an angel at the same time, he would kneeel first to the priest and then to the angel, out of reverence for the sanctity of Holy Orders. Mother Teresa never though to replace priests, she always collaborated with priests, and relied on them to nourish her with the eucharist and the sacrament of reconciliation. Mother teresa claims it was these services, rendered by priests, which gave her the strength to help the poor. Regarding brother Damien, could you possibly be referring to the missionary Bl. Damien de Veuster of Molokai? If so, he was definitely a priest. Finally, I trust Pope Benedict, St. Francis, Bl. Mother Teresa, and Bl. Damien in their analysis of the priesthood more so than I trust the author of this article.

reply
Well said. Of course I also
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Jun. 11, 2009.
Well said. Of course I also think it is important to remember our priests. Have you said thank you to your parish priest(s)? to your pastor? Do they work 'way to hard'? Maybe we need to reflect too on how we can be 'priest' (claim our own 'priestly minsitry') in our own parish. Maybe we need to reflect on the need for married priests and women priests. After all - the C. church has had both. Instead of saying we wouldn't have eucharist or church maybe we need to think about how to be inclusive of all which means opening eucharist and church to more. Isn't that what Jesus was all about - inclusive?

Theology and Self Importance.

2009-06-15T05:46:00.000-07:00

Someone was very upset with me recently abnd tole me plainly that I was not a theologian. I gave thanks to God immediately. Have you met any of our modern theologians? Have you met the `catholic` thologians who believe that when Jesus told you to hate your father and mother he literary meant it? Perhaps you should go to Hope, Roehampton, or Glasgow University to find outf? Indded if you meet someone who refuses to call a priest Father then he or she is probably a ` thelogian` I have blogged on these ladies before. They also have theologicallly decided that the Church is wrong in its approach to adultery and homosexuality and they have a piece of paper called a Theologyt Degree which means they know better. But fI am not attacking all theologians. You see it depends on where you got your degree. There are places like Maryvale where they recognise what a CAtholic Theology Degree is about. It is not about a theologian dedicing whether the Church is right or wrong the role of a Catholic Theologian is to explain what the Church teaches. It is the Hooy Spirit working through kthe infallibility of the Church, the hierarchical Church created by Jesus and attested too in the Document Lumeh Gentiaum of Vatican II although those who have the spiritof Vatican II may reject this. I was listening to a real crazy idea recently. Apoparently `theologiansf` have decided that it is not when the priest says "This is my Body" that the bread changes as with the wine. It is when we invoke the Holy Spirit. Now let me stretch my imagination and declare that for hundreds of years people have been decieved by this in catechisms, and teachings from the Pope to the ordinary parish priest. There is still one great difficulty left. In the Latin Mass the priest never asked the Holy Spirity to come down and santify the gifts. Jesus himself did not do so. So even his consecration was invalid. It is all so stupid. But indirectly there is a serious point. It is a lie spread to undermine the priesthood. It is the priest acing `in persona christi` who changes the bread and wine. Christ is the priest and victim.
If you have a `theologian`` from Maryvale in his role as clarifying the teachings 0f the Church he will mae this much more easily understood than I can. The fraudulent theologians just deny it. There is a well known spiritual teaching in the Church that when we receive Jesus as an individual in Holy Communion such his his infinite love that this loves absorbs us and He comsumes us. He does not become part of us us we become part of him. This is a simple teaching which should deepen our spirituality. The idea that the whole process of receiving communion has nothing to do with the individual and we are all comed into the Body of Christ as a whole and not also indiviudally is just poppycock.

Would you deny a woman her rights and not kill her baby? Sorry, if you are a christian doctor you will lose your job. No conscience is good conscie

2009-06-11T07:13:00.000-07:00

Yes, the right to conscience in abortion matters is under attack in America and CAnada and soon will be in this country. These doctros who peform late abortions and kill babies like this when they are breathing and struggling for air are heroes according ot one pro-abortionist. Just throwing them into a waste disposal sack or squeeze their heads till their brain stops functioning is a real acto of herism. And when you are ppaid over $2,000 remember all those women wbno are so proud of you. There is certainly no room for christians or human beings in this business.

Is this letter the experience of the majority or the minority?

2009-06-11T04:58:00.000-07:00

SIR - I was in an orphanage in Belfast run by nuns in the early 1960s and would like to make a few observations as someone who is surely qualified more than many to do so.

It upsets me to see so much negative rhetoric accepted without question about so-called cruel, heartless, Catholic clergy and nuns (Report, May 31). While some people surely have genuinely suffered and this is a dreadful crime, I suspect financial "compensation" has encouraged others to apportion blame and resentments on people who are not really the cause of their deep-seated anger, sadness and disappointments in early or later life. When money was put on the table the accusations rocketed. That is surely an aspect of the story which no media are covering.

I would ask this question: where would I and the hundreds who were my peers have been without those nuns? I remember very clearly that we were so many and the nuns were few and, yes, certainly harassed. It was 24/7 for them with no holidays. In those days abortion was generally still, thank God, rightfully a crime, so "the saved", "mistakes", along with the kids from broken homes, depended on the religious orders for survival.

How many thousands of good citizens have "my" nuns and the other orders been responsible for sheltering, feeding, washing, educating and caring for when others couldn't - or wouldn't? Why are they all being so mercilessly condemned for the actions of "some"? Why is the description "endemic abuse" being promoted so freely and without question? Many of the accused generation are now incapable of defending themselves and the Church, after a series of scandals, seems to prefer not to even attempt to defend the good name of most of its apostles of that time, which is so very sad and unfair.

I was never once beaten, mistreated, molested or manhandled in the six years I was in the care of the nuns. However, when I eventually found myself in a non-religious state school I was strapped, humiliated and thumped on many occasions. How much will the government offer me for that "abuse"?

In my experience I can say that the nuns did their best at all times in very difficult circumstances and I will always be grateful to them for giving me a chance to survive. I hope that more people like me will write to tell the other side of the story, because there is another side.

Yours faithfully,
Name and address supplied

This letter appeared in last weekend`s Catholic Herald. I approached the Irish abuse cases asking questions because one of my basic principles is that among any group of people there will be the good, the bad, and the indifferent. Nobody seemed to want to know just how many members of the Christian Brothers were child abusers. The production of figures 791 cases of abuse were taken at face value. Yet a little thought would have shown that if they were between 1936 and 1970 this came down to 25 per year. And taking the fact that this would be broken down to about 13 boys and 12 girls a year how could this be endemic in the boys and not in the girls? When people were marching in Dublin what were they marching about? These were not 25 cases of sexual rape in fact only a 12% were about sexual abuse and these again were divided into kissing, hugging,inappropriate touching, sexual talk, and a smal number , again about 132% of the 12% were rape. You can work out how many of these therefore took place each year carried out by Brothers AND Lay members. Yes , I know, I have often heard from my Irish colleagues how curel the Chritian Brothers were. How Many? And as the lady who wrote the letter said she received much worse in State schools. And I would say I experienced much the same in Britain. There were a lot of really good teachers but some very cruel ones when it came to the beatings. On the Sunday after the report The BBC progtramme the Big Questions the Irish Abuse cases were introduced as offences by priests, monks and nuns and the first speaker introduced immediately went into his experience of Rape. Yet Rape was hardly the issue. I am ashamed at just how quickly many catholics whoi should have known better refused to reason out what was a poor report and jumped onto the media bandwaggon. The Archbishop of Dublin was so busy trying to be popular with the media that he even attacked Archbishop Voincent Nichols for what was a sensible remark. 25 cases a year covering a range of abuses not seen so at the time, and the accused were not called to defend themselves. does not seem unreasonable if we were to lift the carpet on what was happening here in England. Yes I kknow there was an agreement that there would be no prosecutions but has anyone worked out yet that if 791 cases fhad gone to court then those drawing up the report would have had to wait until the cases were over and then just how long would this report have taken? Someone as reported in the BBC news is trying to stir things up in this country by pointing to a borstal. Add that to the legal birching in the in the past. I am sure that Ireland would seem a kintergarden compared to what would come out

Why the BNP won two seatts.

2009-06-09T11:31:00.000-07:00

When the BNP leaflet dropped through my door before the election I had a quick glance and immefdiately said "They will do well at this election" It was not rocket science or super intelligence I simply recalled that an awful lot of people were out of work and blaming immigration. Yet none of the main parties had adressed the issue. It was some sort of political correctness. Even after the election the media did not seem to want to believe it. Nick Griffin had one more trick up his sleeves which even I was unaware of, he had foresaken London and moved to places with high unemployment like Barnsley to ram his message home. When you are unemplyed and the BNP seem to be the only party who care it is almost inevitable that they will get your vote. The answer is not to shout about the rise in fascism, as some noisy young people did outside Westminster tonight for these voters were not fascists. Only the BNP was adressing the issue and there was no European debate. The answer is to control immigaration in two fronts. When poorer countries join the EU it is inevitable that there will be a movement from these countries to the richer ones so that workers can earn money to send back to their familes or to bring their families with them. This does affect health, social, and employment resources in the richer countries and it is nonsense to say they do not. The other type of immigration is from non-EU countries, the illegal immigrants whom the Government are seen to be doing nothing to stop. Rightly or wrongly this causes concern. The answer is to take these questions away from the BNP and debate them properly without anyone being made to feel they are right wing bigots.

Forty Years of deceit has led to this.

2009-06-08T10:40:00.000-07:00

I have to say I felt upset by this blog entery, I found myself wondering if those in the photograph realised that their visit to the church would be made publicised in this way and their worship become the subject of public comment. To me it looks simply as if they were waiting for daily Mass to begin.

Adoration is available all day on Wednesdays in this Parish at Holy Ghost Church.

I am surprised by your comments that suggest that what you perceive to be a failutre to teach traditional catholicism is a failure to evangelise and consequently there is a lack of vocations. This cannot be true. I for one find that that over insistance on traditional practices is off putting. I know that Christ is present in His church but I would not want to be part of any 'church' where that 'church' and its practices are placed over and above Christ Himself: a compassionate man who seemed not to want people to be bound by the law and ritual but to be set free. In my mind the Rital and law should serve faith , not us serve them.

I must say I was very tempted to write "My case rests" when I rece3ived the above comment on a former post. But whoever sent this was sincere. He or she is a victim of forty years of brainwashing and deceit by the Catholic hierearchy and its bureaucrat allies. I was talking about the Blessed Sacrament, which is not some kind of superstition but the Substantial Presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament as taught by the Pope the vast majority of Bishops, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, VAtican II, and the laity for hundreds of years. How can I then be accused of putting `practices before Jesus. It is to ensure that catholics have access to Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament that these ruules were made. It is pointless to say there is Adoration at the Holy Ghost. The parishioners of St Bedes have a right to the fullness of the Cstholic Faith; they have a right to kneel and speak to Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament and the removal from the altar of the Tabernacle was done by deception. Every catholic man, woman and child has the right to receive instructions in the Catholic Faith. This compassionate Jesus you present as not putting rules and regulations on people is certainly not the Jesus found in Scripture. This is the Jesus who spoke out fearlessy against divorce fand even went on to tell those who were divorced and remarfried that they were living in adultery. This means of course he condmned adultery. Again it is a strange `against the rules` Jesus who when the rich young man asked him how to gain eteranl life told him to keep the commandments. Rules are there to protect whether they aree legal, company, or Church laws. I am sorry that you do not share the universal catholic faith but have been misled by a small number of men and women who will soon be facig the judgement of God. ON vocations again you are making the presumption, though this is forced on you, that the lack of vocation is universal. This is not so. The young men entering the ministry come almost overwhelmingly from Traditioinal backgrounds. There are parts of the worlc where there is no shortage of vocations, other parts of the world where vocations are steadily rising. Your ways are not God`s ways. vocations increase in the parts of the world loyal to Rome. I have quoted time and again in my blog the letter from ARchbishop Curtis of Nebraska which he wrote in 1995. Your challenge is one of integrity - to find the letter and read it. On the Catholic church in England you asked for bread and thos in the Catholic Church in Englasnd have handed you a stone. Belileve me they will pay.

Brown changes his Cabinet; but the moral corruption continues.

2009-06-05T07:09:00.000-07:00

I am blogging this on a day when Labour although suffering from a humiliating defeat in the Local Elections is nevertheless putting on a stunt to distract people by shuffling the Cabinet in a way which can only be deseribed as `theatrical`. TV veiwers are looking over their shoulders for the next appointment as the day drags on. But that is politics - show business. One thing was made clear at a very early age, Ed Balls would not be leaving his post as Childrens Secretary. And there is not doubt that this anti-religious bigot is where he wants to be. He feels it a duty to carry on with the sexualisation of Children from an early age and to ensure that from age 4 the children start getting an interest in sex. It is a form of sex abuse he really is very keen on spreading. AND HE OBVIOUSLY HAS THE SUPPORT OF THE LABOUR PARTY AND ARCHBISHOP VINCENT NICHOLS. With no logic whatseever to support them, there is nevertheless an unbeleivable idea that if young girls are taught sex in Primary Schools they will not get pregnant as teenagers. It is aload of codswallop. What it will do is enable poedophiles to groom young children much more easily. What we need in this country is a moral revolution not a political one. If only catholics could be as eager to protect children as much as Ed Balls is eagter to destroy them.

"This is what Heaven is like!".

2009-06-03T11:54:00.000-07:00

It was billed just as another funeral Mass for a Mr Norman McGlynchy a young man still in his forties who had died of cancer. The face on the photograph was familiar but we had never really met him. Una, Kevin and I were a little late in arriving but as we entered the Church the most beautiful music I had ever heard was being sun. A mixed voice choir was singing the Latin Kyrie in the Franz Schubert setting. Rather stunned we made our way to a bench and suddenly I found myself weeping. The music was drawing my soul to heaven because it was so beautiful. In the last forty years we have had folk music, guitars strumming, and community choruses in our parish which can only be described as functional. It lackefd beauty and was aimed not at God but to cater to the lowest common denominator of taste in the community. The chor sand in Latin certainly but we had the English translations beside the Latin in our booklet. Having recovefd from these instant thoughts I found the schola was from the Oratory School in London and looking around me the benches were filled with the students from that School. Norman McLynchy had been a teacher there and it was obvious that the school had a great love for him.
The prayerful attitude of the young people was a credit to that school. The highlight of the Mass for me is that as I moved forward to be united to my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ the choir was singing the beautiful Ave Verum by Mozart. I thought my heart would burst with love. It may well be another forty years before our parish is again blessed in this way. But as I passed Morman McGlyncheys coffin I bent down and kissed the wood and said "Thank you, Norman. This is what Heaven is like".

More on the Expenses Issue.

2009-06-02T11:06:00.000-07:00

More on the Shroud of Turin

2009-06-02T10:19:00.000-07:00

HOLY COMMUNNION AND COMMUNITY - AN EVIL TEACHNG THAT LED TO THIS.................

2009-06-02T06:00:00.001-07:00

....the Blessed Sacrament is now kept in the Burning Bush an ornament kept in the corner to be admired. The Blessed Sacrament is not intended to be part of the prayer life of the parishioners.

So let us put it all together. There was the removal of the altar rails and the forcing of people to stand while taking communion. There was the introduction of communion in the hand. One bishop slated a parishioner for asking to kneel for Holy Communion. He was told he was part of a procession tot he altar. Finally there is the teaching that we come as a body to Holy Communion and we receive as a Body not as individuals. It seems absurd yet this is what the Bishops and their fellow heretics dreamed up in the seventies. Everyone had to join the procession, whatever the state of their souls because we were the one `Body of Christ`, we are Community. There was the obstacle of Confession but by simply doing away with the Traditioonal Saturday Morning Mass and Confessions this threat was easily minimised. Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament and Benediction, "Let us do away with such things" cried the clever catholics. "We should not adore bread" seminarians were told. It was an evil, pernicious attack on the Catholic Faith by our bishops. You only have to examine the rubbish that is given to children as preparation for their First Holy Communion in many parishes and you will be unable to contradict me. Devotions are frowned on. But we do receive individually and we are the Body of christ. It is how we receive the Blessed Sacrament that detrmines how effective the Body can work. The Bishops and their clever catholics do not care about worthiness nor how much they insult Our Lord Jesus. They seem to be looking for some kind of storm troopers who will tackle poverty. They do not care about holiness. I am always amazed by the number of catholics who justify this insult to Christ on the grounds that it is change for the 21st Century. They really should wake up.

The Irish Government was complicit in Irish Abuse cases.

2009-06-02T03:48:00.000-07:00

Boys Town’s Father Flanagan called Ireland’s reform schools a ‘disgrace’
June 01, 2009
In a 1946 trip to his native Ireland, Father Edward Flanagan (1886-1948), founder of Boys Town, toured reform schools now under fire for their endemic abuse and called them a “scandal, un-Christlike, and wrong.”

Describing the schools as “a disgrace to the nation,” he told a large audience, “You are the people who permit your children and the children of your communities to go into these institutions of punishment. You can do something about it.”

Minister for Justice Gerald Boland said at the time that he was “not disposed to take any notice of what Monsignor Flanagan said while he was in this country, because his statements were so exaggerated that I did not think people would attach any importance to them.”

Basingstoke listen to this babble.

2009-06-01T09:10:00.000-07:00

There only interest as a supernational force seems to be Global warming. There was a quick mention of crime and immigration and the working week. But it seems they were more interested in unemployment than employment, and indeed it was many of `their` decisions which led to unemployment This `successful` European Parliament where there were not votes on anytbing we all have heard little about. Have you been able to question your MEP. No, they are apparently above that sort of thing. Ou MEP`s are not boasting to us in this way - perhaps they are afraid of questions. VOTE LIBERTAS and keep your sanity.

If you think our MP`s expenses are scandalous. Take a look at our MEP`s VOTE LIBERTAS

2009-05-29T12:53:00.000-07:00

I am still very confused by this Irish Abuse Report

2009-05-29T09:24:00.000-07:00

791 children were abused in Catholic Institutions between 1936 and 1940. That is what the Ryan report states. Now I am not questioning that abuse is abuse nor excusing anyone BUT were I to say that last year there were 25 cases of physical, mental, and sexual abuse in Ireland would this figure cause concern and raise the furore that putting a total figure over 36 years has done? Yet if you do your arithmetic this is what the record says. Over 36 years there were 25 cases of such abuses every year. How then can we justify the conclusion that abuse was endemic in these institutions, as the Ryan Report concludes? Again of the 25 only 12% of these were rape and this works out at 3 per year. Again I am not in denial, just asking the questions from the figures given. What I resent is the Catholic and Irish bigotry when there is no other country Ireland can be compared to in an age when `Spare the Rod and Spil the Child` was accepted everywhere. Yes there were cruel Christian Brothers but there were also viscious teachers in Britain. I grew up in that era and I recalled in a previous blog my own experience of abuse..Sisters of Mercy. Again I ask `Who can throw the first stone?" I remember in the 1950`s watching a film called Cosh Boy. It was a British production and centred round a teenager who only had amother who could not control him. His mothr met this man who wanted to discipline him but he could not legally do so since he was not his father. The boy slashed another young man with a razor and bullied the girl till she gave in to sex. He was a nasty lad. He came home one night and his mother told him she had married the boyfriend and the lad started screaming at the end of the film when the new husband took off his belt to hit him with. And remember thee was legal birching. I was listening to one young victim of abuse describing how these nuns treated her and it seems that all of the nuns were sadists. On 25 a year I very much question this, and I would question it if it was 100 a year. Who is speaking up for the vast majority of Christian Brothers and

The homosexual link in Irish Child Abuse - but we must not talk about it.

2009-05-29T06:47:00.000-07:00

The Ryan Report stated that 791 boys and girls were abused (physically, sexually, or both) in Ireland between 1936 and 1970. Of those 791 people, 413 were male and 378 were female. Fr. Owen drew a link between the extreme prevelance of male clergy sexually abusing male students, as opposed to the significantly smaller number of male clergy who sexually abused female students.

The Ryan Report, in its conclusion, states that “Sexual abuse was endemic in boys’ institutions. The situation in girls’ institutions was different. Although girls were subjected to predatory sexual abuse by male employees or visitors or in outside placements, sexual abuse was not systemic in girls’ schools.”

Archbishop Nichols is more clever than the rest of us.

2009-05-29T06:14:00.000-07:00

Someone put this bubble on Archbishop Vincent. But he or she fails to understand that the Archbishop is one of our `clever` catholics. He knows and he has been assured by the Teenage Pregnancy Unit that by the time a child is able to name all the sexual parts of the body he or she will no longer be interested in having sex. it is all very clever and beyond the puny minds of ordinary parents. We know this is true because `Studies have shown......"

The Irish Abuse Cases: Now it is the "Catholic and Irish Question"

2009-05-29T03:43:00.000-07:00

Damian Thompson in an artivcle on his blog quotes from a colleage, not doubt a journalist who said "The physical abuse was Irish, the sexual abuse was Catholic" Now I have been very cautious over this story since I knew there would be such a backlash. I have to ask myself why did the Irish Government hold this enquiry in the first place? Yes, we knew there were abuses. If the answer is to get justice for those who had suffered so much then I must ask a further question. Why is Britain not so keen on doing justice to its past? I grew up in Britain in an age when physical punishment was acdeptable. I related how young men went off to be legally birched. I have watched a number of programmes on TV where people were relating their experiences in care? I remember one programme about a young girl who was having sex at twelve by her father`s friends. When she went into care she was raped by the staff and this must have been a common experience for when she went to a place in Bournemouth where there was special protection such as an alarm if someone stepped throgh the door at night it sounded. It did not give a very good picture of how our young people were being treated? The problem with my statement is that it could be right or could be wrong. May France, Belgium, or Briatain were worse than Ireland. `Spare the rod and spoil the child` was as much part of their culture as that in Ireland. So until we know better and we can compare Irland with other countries should we be eager to cast the first stone?

Why I am voting Libertas on 4th June.

2009-05-28T15:07:00.000-07:00

Child Abuse the British Way.

2009-05-27T08:58:00.000-07:00

Please note there is a inaccuracy in a diagramme in the ATIA series published prior to 2004. Please contact us for more information. Books published after 2004 are not affected. End of Message.

Sex is a difficult enough subjecy to cope with at puberty. But the `brains` of the Catholic Church as they work with The Terenage Pregnancy Unit are producing a nightmare. Premature arousal of sexual feelings is Child Abuse but to start at 5 years is utterly disgraceful. It takes a lot of stupidity to believe that if we start teaching children of 5 years about sex then when they are teenagers they will not get pregnant. If anyone can contradict this I would be delighted to hear. What this is all about is the pre-occupation of sex by adults. They get a thrill in all this. I remember when in Social Services it was very difficult to get onto sex courses they were always over subscribed even though their relevance to the work of many departments was very questionable. Ed Balls, MP, is the champion of poedophiles. Sexual arousal started early will make finding victims so much easier. It is time we supported Catholic Teachings and got rid of our tired useless English Bishops. But maybe I am wrong. Perhaps a father should be proud when his little daughter comes from school and shows him his `vas deferens`. What a load of muck!

European Elections - I will be voting LIBERTAS

2009-05-26T13:12:00.000-07:00

Next Tuesday is election day. In the county Council election I will be voting for a friend so the party does not matter. Europe is another story. I know nest to nothing about Europe and Iwas in politics for four or five years. Nobody else I know knows anything about Europe. But that is what the mainstream parties wanted. Europe is just a club for less able politiciands who just wheel and deal behind the scenes. There has not been a vote taken in the European Parliament for five yars. So you wanted a voice in the European Constituion? The Europ MPs did not even vote on it. I tried to make a complaint once and found 7 names of Conservatives MEP`s. None of them were local. I picked on and complained but received no reply. I was probably the only one who ever made a complaint and throght the MEP into shock mode. That is why I am voting LIbertas. They are a Pan-European part and will have a common policy and representation throughout Europe. They are going to reform the European Parliament. Thank God someone has thought of that. So if you are wide you too should vote Libertas. -

Of Mice and Men

2009-05-25T06:18:00.000-07:00

I have just been reading a post on www.thesensiblebond.blogspot.com. The blogger is very concerned about the sex education programme introduced into the Birminghamd Diocese. I have given a sample of this programme on a previous post. He speaks of an attempt by him and some concerned Catholic friends to reach the bishops of England and Wales on this issue. They received a postive answer from Bishop O`Donghue but of the rest only five replied and three of those were evasive. His blog is supberb and almost a duty to read. He is not as headstrong as me and makes some excuses for the bishops. I make none. For a number of years I have been concerned about the number of young girls leaving catholic schools and becoming pregant within the first two years. No statistics exist but I suspect that the British Pregnancy Service is correct in saying it gets many catholic girls for abortion and can you blame them if they look upon the opposition to abortion by the Catholic Church as hypocritical when it does nothing to help them. There maybe a lot of words but there is no pastoral care in schools which matches the teachings. I Hve knowsn young girls to cry over their abortion and indeed one lady told a friend rather tearfully "Do you know today is the 10th Anniversay of my abortion". I remember giving videos on chastity, good ones, to three priests but recieved no reply. Well not quite, one of them when I was speaking to him at one point said "You are obsessed with sex" Yes, I am obssesed if that means I really care at watching young girls being used and abused and tossed aside. I have opened my eyes to the unhappiness around me and bishops who come along with their `status` to catholic children at confimation and I know that they do not give tuppence for the young people. I remember one mother who was worried about about her daughter going off to `live` with someone and asking the priest for help. "Don`t worry" he replied, "God does not comdemn love, as long as we give to the poor" He was ignorant of the trauma and heartache parents face when 4 out of 5 of them break up and the parents have to pick up the pieces of guilt and anger. Of course, with such insight within a month he was chosen to be a bishop. Of course the clever catholics want the Church to be popular and they want to be popular. So of course they do have relationship teaching in our catholic schools where after a day spent talking about condoms, which at these sessions become 98% safe when the true figure is 85%, and of course there is no mention of their inability to stop Sexually Transmitted Diseases, some schools actually allow Father to explain the teaching of the Church at the end of the day. Unfortunatley most priests do not know or understand them and cannot put them into a real life experience which experts on chastity can. Ask LIFE who try to get into schools and find that Catholic Schools are the most difficult when it comes to receiving permission to speak. So there we have it. There is no doubt that since the removal of catholic teaching from our schools to be replaced by modernist claptrap the interest of children in the catholic faith has declined. Nine out of Ten children who start catholic schools will come from homes where there is not religious interest. Many of them will hate the Church and practicing catholic children will be bullied. But our Bishops do not give a damn. Of Mice and Men, indeed.

Confusion over the Irish Child Abuse cases.

2009-05-23T10:56:00.000-07:00

I am a little confused over the Irish Abuse Report. In a former blog I reported how I was severely belted as a five year old. We did not call it physical abuse at the time but in the report of the Irish Committee it would certainly have come under their statistics as child abuse. I had a bnumber of these beatings throughout my schooldays. #All of these could have been termed child abuse. Again when I was growing up I was aware that some of the older boys who had been arrested by the police were sent to be `birched`. Some sort of stroke by a stick. Offricial policy of the law. As I grew older I was well aware of the stories of rape and abuse in our British institutions. I do not remember any Government committee investigating them. The Irish Committee also filled in pages about neglect. How children were left freezing in rooms. Well I used to sit freezing in my bedroom at home when all we had were cold fires. Did my family neglect me? Then under neglect came being left without any care or communication. Just go into many of our old peoples homes today? I worked in a state residential home for boys in the 1970`s They were far from innocent little children and were constantly challenging the staff with their behaviour. It got to the point that the boys just ruled the place while the staff ran after their every whim to have some peace. so there is another factor. PLerhaps prior to the 70`s whcih 80% of these cases reported by the Committee coverd their was a differnt set of values. I think the Irish bishops are making the same mistake as the American bishops made. They are too ready to look good to the media without offering one word of defence to the accused. The Bishop of Dublin was very forthright in showwing compassion for those who had been beaten and abused. But should he not have been asking questions about different values and life expdriences in differnt periods. Perhaps in the past the mistake made was just trying to discipline children who refused to be disciplined.

Mary of England - the final final version. All it nees is a singer(definitely), a choir, an orchestra and the Pope

2009-05-23T09:29:00.000-07:00

Mary of England honoured was your name
When first the Saxons to our island came
Kings paid you homage, peasants sang your praide
England was your Dowry in those goden days
Through fields and woodland pilgrims made their way
Angelus bells rang, people knelt to pray
This was your garden, your beautiful place,
Mary of England, Hail full of Grace!

Mary of England come to us once more
Shine brightly on us as you did before
Mother of Jesus, wonders we would do
If only we could love him half as much as you
When Satan taunts us, take away our fears
When sorrows hurt us, wipe away our tears,
Children we long for our mother`s embrace
Mary of England, Hail full of Grace!

Mary of England as we sing your praise
Hilltops and mountains echo our Aves
Birds sing their love songs, flowers bend in prayer
All of us rejoicing in your loving care
Where there were places spoiled by evil men
Let great processions honour you again
O how we long for your hevenly face
Mary of England, Hail full of Grace!

Theology of the Body. Keeping a sense of proportion.

2009-05-23T05:05:00.000-07:00

When I spoke in a previous blog about Adam discovering he was naked and God asking him why he knew this stating that God had meant the sex act not be something of shame I was I hope referring to the Theology of the Body as taught by Pope John Paul II. One of the champions of this theology is a Christopher West but lately he has caused a great deal of unease by taking the Theology beyond reasonable thought. True, God did not mean that sex should be something to be ashamed of but when the original sin was committed this first innocence was lost. It is still very much a part of us and we should not try to take `innocence` too far. Christopher has I am afraid and drawn some justifiable criticism. We do have shame about our body and this is a natural outcome of that Original Sin. Christopher beleives we can somehow gain our original innocence by looking at our naked body and be unafraid to talk about it. This has gone too far from what Pope John Paul intended. Christopher is well intentioned but he has failed to grasp this. His teachings are now causing some young people feelings of guilt. I believe that sex is a holy act but I dfo not deny there is a margin of concupiscence still there. But if we act in complete harmony with God and realise the presence of God that is there waiting to bring to the world new life then love will triumph over this relationship and make it holy just as our resurrection will triupmph over death.

Religiious Intolerance - Why we ned a general election,.

2009-05-23T03:30:00.000-07:00

LONDON, May 21, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com ) - British churches will be forced to accept practicing homosexuals or "transsexuals" in positions as youth workers and similar roles, under upcoming equality legislation, the government has said. The Labour government's Equality Bill will prohibit churches from refusing to hire active homosexuals even if their religion holds such behavior to be sinful, said deputy equalities minister Maria Eagle.

The legislation is due to come into force next year, and churches fear that it will force them to act against their religious convictions in a broad range of areas. Eagle indicated at a conference called "Faith, Homophobia, Transphobia, & Human Rights" in London, that the legislation "will cover almost all church employees."

"The circumstances in which religious institutions can practice anything less than full equality are few and far between," she told delegates. "While the state would not intervene in narrowly ritual or doctrinal matters within faith groups, these communities cannot claim that everything they run is outside the scope of anti-discrimination law.

"Members of faith groups have a role in making the argument in their own communities for greater LGBT acceptance, but in the meantime the state has a duty to protect people from unfair treatment."

The bill allows a religious exemption for roles deemed to be "for the purposes of an organised religion" but restricts this definition to those who conduct liturgical celebrations or spend their time teaching doctrine.

The Daily Telegraph quoted Neil Addison, a Roman Catholic barrister and expert on religious discrimination law, who said that the bill will leave churches powerless to defend the fabric of their organization. "This is a threat to religious identity. What we are losing is the right for organizations to make free choices," he said

Equality commissioners include the homosexual lobbyist, Ben Summerskill, the head of the leading British homosexualist activist group Stonewall. Summerskill has called for churches to be forced to employ homosexuals and for the police to stop Christians who were peacefully protesting against 'gay rights' laws outside Parliament.

Tony Grew, a homosexualist activist and the former editor of PinkNews.co.uk, wrote recently that the Equality Bill will "entrench gay rights in all aspects of public life." Grew wrote on PinkNews that the bill will open unprecedented opportunities for homosexuals.

The bill, he said will cover central government departments, local authorities, education bodies, NHS bodies and the police service, plus a wide range of other public and private bodies, including churches and church-run institutions. It will impose the "Equality Duty" on all organizations providing public services, he said, such as residential care homes that "would have to consider the needs of same-sex couples."

Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Enforced "Diversity" will make Britain "First Modern Soft Totalitarian State"
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/may/09050602.html

UK: Religious Schools May Not Teach Christian Sexual Morals "As if They Were Objectively True"
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/mar/07030504.html

Even an Openly Homosexual Actor has Condemned New UK Law Which Would Criminalize Criticizing Homosexuality
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/oct/07101101.html

"Climate of Fear" Growing in Britain for Christian Civil Marriage Registrars
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08052204.

On the Irish Abiuse Cases I asked questions. Now I am getting answers.

2009-05-22T12:50:00.000-07:00

HYSTERIA OVER IRISH CLERGY ABUSE

May 20, 2009

After nine years of investigation, Ireland’s Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse has published its findings. More than 30,000 children, most of them delinquents, passed through one or more of Ireland’s Catholic-run institutions from the 1920s through the 1980s.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the report today:

Reuters is reporting that “Irish Priests Beat, Raped Children,” yet the report does not justify this wild and irresponsible claim. Four types of abuse are noted: physical, sexual, neglect and emotional. Physical abuse includes “being kicked”; neglect includes “inadequate heating”; and emotional abuse includes “lack of attachment and affection.” Not nice, to be sure, but hardly draconian, especially given the time line: fully 82 percent of the incidents took place before 1970. As the New York Times noted, “many of them [are] now more than 70 years old.” And quite frankly, corporal punishment was not exactly unknown in many homes during these times, and this is doubly true when dealing with miscreants.

Regarding sexual abuse, “kissing,” and “non-contact including voyeurism” (e.g., what it labels as “inappropriate sexual talk”) make the grade as constituting sexual abuse. Moreover, one-third of the cases involved “inappropriate fondling and contact.” None of this is defensible, but none of it qualifies as rape. Rape, on the other hand, constituted 12 percent of the cases. As for the charge that “Irish Priests” were responsible, some of the abuse was carried out by lay persons, much of it was done by Brothers, and about 12 percent of the abusers were priests (most of whom were not rapists).

The Irish report suffers from conflating minor instances of abuse with serious ones, thus demeaning the latter. When most people hear of the term abuse, they do not think about being slapped, being chilly, being ignored or, for that matter, having someone stare at you in the shower. They think about rape.

By cheapening rape, the report demeans the big victims. But, of course, there is a huge market for such distortions, especially when the accused is the Catholic Church.

This picture is for your 9 year old. Just tell them it is anatomy. They will understand.

2009-05-22T11:07:00.000-07:00

I was once called sex-obsessed by someone when I was trying to convince him that children should be taught chastity. Nobody really cares about kids getting pregnant in the Church of today, do they? Well, the Catholic Education Service has convinced me. The above picure may shock you, silly people, but when presented to 9 year olds in the new sex eduction programme "All that I am" drawn up of course by `experts` it will help them not to get pregnant when they are older. Of course it will. Ed Balls the Minister for Children thought he would have trouble with the Catholic Church in enforcing sex education for 4 years. He now knows what hypocrits the Catholic Hierarchy are. But let me not be negative. Bring your 9 - 11 years to the PC and give them real knowledge - the Catholic way. After all it is just anatomy - they will not get in the least embarrassed and if they do - too bad. H/T to Jckie Parkes, Catholic Mum of 10. She was told to wait and see by some catholics who have not quite caught up what is happening in our schools already. But let us get back to the real problems....The Novus Ordo v the Tridentine Mass. We must not get distracted.

Is there any press in the world more bigoted than the British?

2009-05-22T06:40:00.000-07:00

I feel sorry for Vincent Nichols. There he was just ready to be made Archbishoop of Westminster when the Irish Report on abuse in Religious Institutions comes out? The wolves were at his door immediately trying to devour him. I thought what he said made sense. I thought he said the right things. But with the British Press if there is nothing nasty to report in what a Catholic says they simply take an honest statement and twist it. The ARchbishop had said it would take courage for members of Religious Orders to face up to the truth about their past. He was of course referring to the good and sound relgious who now have to look back and wonder why some of their collesagues betrayed them and what guilt maybe they played in keeping silent if they knew anything. Indeed the whole catholic community in Ireland will have to have the courage to say "No, we were so so wrong." That takes courage. it is easy to roll it all under the carpet. But of course the Biritsh press came out with another interpretation to suit their own bias. The Archbishop was talking about those who had abused children and the courage it would take for them to face up to their past. This was patently not the case indeed he wants these people prosecuted like everyone else. Now Archbishop Nichols at least knows his enemy.

Is a Committee a Jury?

2009-05-21T05:05:00.000-07:00

The Committee which reported on the abuses in catholic institutions in Ireland was set up by the Irish Government in the year 2000. There was the resignation of a chairman in 2004 claiming the work was being obstructed. The Christian brothers were asking that there should be no names named in the final report. The Committee would not agree. Eventually the matter was resolved and the Christian brothers co-operated by bringing out from their archives in Rome their cases of abuse in Ireland that the order had looked into, so a blind eye was not being turned. The point about naming and shaming is that the committee could only as as the Prosecution. Who was going to represent the defence? As I said in my previous blog we do not know if the abuse was `endemic` until we have heard both sides. 3,001 `witnesses came forward but how many of them were honest and how many had `compensation` fised in their brain, hoping the Church would pay up without question. Having siad this I have no doubt there was an uncomfortable number of abuse cases. One of the reasons would be that many priests and nuns were unhappy in their vocation since some never wished it in the first place and others did not have the courage to leave. In Ireland in families there was a great yearning for one of the children to be a priest or nun. Many were packed off to seminaries or convents not `to try their vocation` as we would say today but to become a priest or nun and if they left they became a disgrace to their family. Family pressure was there even in the best of families. By leaving you faced people who felt you had let them down since in having a vocation in the family there was a social status. I know of one case where the family disowned a young girl who had left a convent. Not surprisinly they did not make good nuns or priests if they stayed. I hope there will be prosecutions so that the innocent do not suffer with the guilty as happened in America. Meanwhile we must pray for the victims of abuse for in their hearts they know that they ded meet good priests and nuns who really did care. I remember when I was five years old in a Catholic school I was accused of talking in the Church and taken by a teacher back to school, to received what we called the `belt`. The teacher struck me on both hands three times with a belt. If it landed on the palm of the hand fine, it was painful. But often it went up to the lower arm as happened in my case. Her strokes were far too viscious on a five year old. I left the school crying and met my mother who was furious when she looked at my hands. She went back to create merry hell against the teacher. I was ill for two weeks afterwards my mother threatening to send me to a Protestant school which brought the parish priest in with promises that it would never happen again. I could look bakc on my Primary school days and let that dominate my thinking. But no. There were other teachers who were wonderful. One techer in particular a Miss Harkins I really had a crush on even at that early age. I think back on my Primary schol days as happy ones. Pray for all victims of abuse and especially today we must pray for the Church in Ireland.

The Abuse of children in Ireland? Was it really as bad?

2009-05-20T14:11:00.000-07:00

In America The Catholic Church when abuse cases were broght forward tried to keep favour with the media and admit everything. It now finds that some of the priests they accused were innocent yet thousands of dollars were paid in compensation. Although I do not deny there was abuse in Ireland I would like to examine the evidence since many of those priests and nuns accused are not able to plead their defence, many having died. So we have 2,000 people rushing forward for compensation with only their side of the story to back them up. I listned last night on TV to 2 `abused` people and quite honestly I thought they had some questions to answer before I could believe them. But in Ireland as in America it seems the Church is deemed guillty until proven innocent. Is there one bishop who will forget their image, and ask some questions.

Archbishop Vincent Nichols - does this man deserve to be a Cardinal

2009-05-20T03:57:00.000-07:00

H/T to Catholic Mum of 10 - who herself was a schoolteacher. The diocese of Birmingham has with the co-operation of the Catholic Education Service produced a programm "All that I AM" to teach Primary School children about sex. 9- 11 years will be asked to name the parts of the body of the opposite sex. You know, genitalia, pelvis, etc. To me this is the work of a sick man. It will rouse sexual feelings at a time when children will be unable to deal with them. Nichols should be ashamed. And this nonsense that it will stop teenage pregancies. Take a cold shower Archbishop Nichols. In talks with the Minister for Children Ed Balls Nichols came out with the statement he would do it the Catholic way. This is Catholic? This is a Poedophiles Charter. They can now break through a child`s innocence by talking about what they are taught at school. I beleive that tomorrow will be a day of shame for the English Church when such a man is made Archbishop of Westminster. Click Catholic Mum of 10 on the left.

Is the marriage act a means of sanctification?

2009-05-19T07:51:00.000-07:00

Members of the SSPX have been horrified by Christopher West making the remark that sex in marriage is a means of sanctification. Although I am sometimes harsh with them I realise their difficulty. Let us start at the beginning - Genesis. Genesis 3.10 says "And he 9Adam) said `I heard the sound of You in the garden and I was afraid because I was naked and I hid myself. He siad "Who told you that you were naked have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to ear" The shame of Adam in being naked was something new and God had certainly not intended this. Original sin had tainted him with lust and desires rather than love and he felt ashamed. God had noit intended this. He had not intended sex to be something humans should be ashamed of since it was a beautiful gift he had given them. To those who scorn Christopher West I would ask "Who told you it was not a means of sanctification?" It is their own weakness through original sin that causes them to question. But I would go further and say that the marriage act is something holy. For in every act there is the presence of God. The couple co-operate with him in the beginning of life. This is why the Church opposes contraception since it takes God out of marriage and it does then become something merely of human satisfaction.

The puritanical attitude of the SSPX towards sex.

2009-05-18T12:29:00.000-07:00

The trouble with the SSPx is that they have not grasped that the world has moved on since the sixties, that young people engage in sex at a much earlier age, and that this demands we develop our understanding and teachings on sexual life to meet young people where they are. Pope John Paul II, developed a `Theology of the Body` which placed sexual life firmly and squarely inside the Sacrament of Marriage. The gift of sex was a good to enjoy within marriage and not something of shame. As part of marriage it was also something that confirmed out faith when used according to the law of God. Indeed within marriage it can be said that when a husband and wife approach sex with loving hearts and a true regard for one another it is like many other facets of marriage a means of sanctification. This is always something I have believed but according to the SSPX this makes me some kind of pervert. Sex must always be seen according to them as something `not quite right` and indeed I wonder if the SSPX would be happy if after sex the husband and wife made an Act of Contrition. But more strongly they oppose the role of those like Christopher West who beleives that this is something, sex being a beautiful thing, that young people should know. The attack on the people who hold to the Theology of the Body, taught by a Pope, something on faith and morals which every catholic should acknowledge as infallible teaching is that it desensitises young people and encourages them towards sex. Let us make one thing clear. No teacher of the Theology of the Body will go into Primary Schools or pupils in their ealy teens. The theology will be taught to young people already struggling with their sexual feelings and will point them in the direction of chastity before marriage because sex is a wonderful gift for marriage. My neice who is just twelve has been told to pray for her future husband and that he will be faithful to her. It is not rocket science just a little hint that only her husband can appreciate her. I personally think that the Theology of the Body is one of the greatest teachings of Pope John Paul. I believe that much opposition was built up in the SSPX because separation from the Main Body caused some resentment and made them hyper-critical of anything the Pope did. I hope they will help their young people by rejecting the puritanical teachings of a Mr Ferrara.

It is beginning in America today.....it will start in Britain tomorrow.

2009-05-18T03:58:00.000-07:00

What is the great crime this priest has committed. His is 80 years old hardly a young hooligan. He led a protest at Notre Dame University in America where President Obama is to be givein an honorary degree. The trouble is that under Obama the right to consciene is being questioned by a bill in the Senate. Catholic doctors and hosptitals will be forced if it is passed to do abortions. Why then should a Catholic College honour Obama. Of course there is great opposition to Obama. It is not that he is just pro-abortion, he is pro-abortion plus. That is the objection. Of course the press is trying to dumb down this with talks of a minority of Republican Catholics, etc. Bush at least opposed partial birth abortion which is simply infanticide. Obama espouses it. Although calling itself a Catholic College the governors of Notre Dame led by a clever catholic, Fr Jenkins, do not care a hoot. In an advice document to police the White House included pro-life demonstrators as possible terrorists and the poolice had to be aware of this. One of the first things Obama did as President was to release thousands of dollars for overseas abortioons and he is now putting a bill through the Senate which would mean the taxpayers of America would pay for abortions whatever their viess. This priest is obviously a terrorsit or they would not be treating him in this way. Of course, the University of Notre Dame is run by the `clever` catholics. Last night President Obama attended the University and in his speech gave out all the usual political gimmicks. Abortion was nasty, he wanted a middle way, etc. Of coursen nobody believed a word - except of course the clever catholics.

Why I hope no other Pope will visit Israel.

2009-05-14T05:11:00.000-07:00

The above is the most moving speech I have ever heard. Despite the misgiving of many Catholics on account of the insult to Pope Pius XII the Benedict visited visited the Holocaust Museum to show his compassion for the vicims of the Holocause. What thanks did he get from the Jewish Rabbis. None. He was attacked for this speech since according to them `he spoke like a historian`. The they brought up his membership of the Hitler Youth. Yes he was enrolled in the Hitler Youth at his school since this was compulsory but he refused to attned any meetings. He related that a schoolmaster seeing his unwillingness covered for him. This is well known by now but the Rabbs refused to listen. Then there is this Holocaust business with Bishop Williamson. Bishop Willimson is not a bishop of the Catholic Church, he does not have a diocese nor a postion anywhee - but they still cannot stop themsleves from being bigots. One Rabbi David Rosen has broken ranks and said "No matter what he does thy will always attack him". Thank you, Rabbi Rosen. I for one have had enough of their whining about the Pope and their presentation of themselves as hated by everyone. I want the insult to Pope Pius XII removed from the Holocaust museum. Pope Pius XII will be canonized a saint of the Catholic Church and one of the main reasons for this will be the suffering he endured as he tried to save so many Jews from the death camps. As Godie Meyer the first Prim Minister of Isarel said in his day he rose above the the ordinary to reach out to the Jewish people. They know these facts. They should be ashamed.

THE FEAST OF OUR LADY OF FATIMA

2009-05-13T08:53:00.001-07:00

Today is the feast of Our Lady of Fatima. How many catholics in England will know this. Was their speical announcements made at last Sundays Masses? Yes, a few priests dedicated to Mary will honour her but the majority? The troulbe is that our clever catholics do not like feast days of Our Lady and especially the Feast of Our Lady of Fatima. That is only for us `immature` people. They can get over Lourdes by presenting it as a place for the sick and indeed a great deal of effort will be put into raising money to send young people as helpers for the sick. but its principle message of `praying for sinners` or `I am the Immaculate Conception`, saying the Rosary, well we can forget that stuff. Unfortunatley the message of Fatima cannot be compromised. It brings us back to the Christ of the Gospels who died t free men from sin and hell, yes the Jesus of the Gospels beleived in hell but clever catholids do not take that Jesus too seriously, they would rather have the teddy bear Jesus whom they can cuddle in their `mature` way. Then of course Fatima challenges us to have real Faith. Do we really believe that God can interven in the world? Do we really believe that Faith can actually achieve things? Do we really beleive that devotion to Mary can bring peace to the world? Devotion? No, again that is for the immature. Yet on this I cannot be too hard on the clever catholics. The simple request byt Our Lady for the Pope and the bishops throughout the world to consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart has caused the VAtican problems. They do not want to antagonise Russia`s Government nor the Orthodox Church. Yes, when everyone is happy with Rome and their are no consequences to the action maybe it will happen. Unfotunaely that is not what Faith is about. If Jesus and Mary tell us to do something we do it because we believe. The fall of the Iron Curtain did not stop Russia spreading its errors throghout the world for Our Lady was talking about the ideology which did not fall with the Berlin Wall but revived in a different form. In Britain and America we are seeing a movement from the left against religion and christianity in particular. The values of the Church are being dismantled and there is in the Church the clever catholics who are taking part with enthusiasm. Let us turn again to Our Lady of Fatima and explore what the angel said to the little children. "My God, I believe, I adore, I hop in you, and I love you, and I ask pardon for those who do not believe nor adore, not hope in you , nor love you" The angel was holding the Blessed Sacrament at the time. Now there is food for thought.

At last, a Mass celebrated in the way the Fathers of Vatican II wanted

2009-05-12T08:25:00.000-07:00

The Pope celebrated Mass in the Valley of Jehosophat under the Molunt of Olives for 3,000 Christians of Jerusalem. It was High Mass, said in Latin but it was not quite the Tridentine Mass though few traditionalists I suspect will quarrel with this. The first point was that he celebrated facing the people but also on the altar he had placed a crucifix to remind himself why he was really there, not as a man in his own right leading a congregation but as a man `in persona christi` I grabbed an old 1962 missalo follow the Latin. Whn it came to the sung psarts of the community they sang in their own language the Sanctus and the Agnus Dei. Al. the hymns they sang were in their own lagugage and there could be no accusation made that they did not particpate in the Mass. At Communion time the Pope gave the sacrament to people who were kneeling. As priests moved among the crowd this was of course impossible but almost everyone received on the tongue. It was a Mass I suspect the Pope had wanted to celebrate for a long time, there was no dancing nor entertainment the Mass was totally focussed on the Holy Sacrifice wth all the dignity that this required. This was the Mass envisaged by the Fathers of Vatican II. No bishop at the Council had said that Latin should be abandoned but they did want greater laity participation. This was an historic Mass and again I asked myself why is there all this foolish oppositio to the Tridentine Mass? Why not just celebrate the Mass they way the Pope did? If there is some thought that avoiding Latin makes us modern and attractive and forwards ecumenism surely after 40 years experience this should be dismissed. No, the Pope celebrated a Catholic Mass and that Mass was the same Mass celebrated thoughout the world. In England we were part of that Sacrifice in Jerusalem just as Jerusalem partakes in the Sacrifice we offer. That is why we use Latin in the first place, the Mass in Universal. We do not offer Joe`s Mass, a school Mass,a `community` Mass, though these may be intentions we bring to the altar.. All Masses are offered as the one Sacrifice of Christ in union with the Universal Church. The Christians in Jerusalem were consoled also by the wods of the Holy Father who consoled them in their sufferings and persecutions. He was truly a spritiual Father visiting his children. And let us not be deceived by our enemies. He is a great Pope.

The Soho Masses - a test of loyalty for the new Archbishop of Westminster.

2009-05-11T06:07:00.000-07:00

Perhaps there were honest but misled people who thought that gays were to be pitied and that the Masses in Soho was a Church outreach to them. We know now that the Soho Masses have nothing to do with christianity, they are a front for the Gay and Lesbian Movement. We have endured their participation in the pornographic Gay Pride Marches while they called out `But we are catholic, why do you persecute us?" The latest escapade is to join this movement in a biggoted and disgraceful attack on the Pope himself advertising him as a homophobic bigot in s conference that is being held soon. The above picture shows the Holy Father the face of the Pope at the centre of these assumed homophobic bigots. It is a disgrace. The new Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Nichols can now easily show where he stands. If he stops these sacriligeous Masses we will know that he stands with the Pope, if he does not we know that he shares the bigotry of Martyn Pendergast and his hypocrits.

My Hymn to Mary -composed for my sister blog The Conversion of England

2009-05-10T05:23:00.000-07:00

Mary of England honoured was your name
When first the Saxons to our island came,
Kings paid you homage, peasants sang your praise
England was your Dowry in those golden days
Through fields and woodland pilgrims made their way
Angelus bells rang, people knelt to pray
This was your garden, your beautiful place
Mary of England, Hail full of Grace.

Mary of England come to us once more
Shine brightly on us as you did before
Mother of Jesus, wonders we would do
If we could love Him half as much as you
When Satan taunts us take away our fears
When we have sorrows wipe away our tears
Children we long for our mother`s embrace
Mary of England, Hail full of Grace.

Ed Balls is Minister for children, schools, and families. His interest in these affairs has proved to be more ideological than helpful.

2009-05-07T09:39:00.000-07:00

ED BALLS, the schools secretary, used Damian McBride, the disgraced spin doctor, to smear ministerial rivals and advance his own ambitions, a Downing Street whistleblower has claimed.

In an explosive new twist to the e-mail affair, a No 10 insider has revealed that Balls was the mastermind behind a “dark arts” operation by McBride to undermine colleagues.

He claims the education secretary is running a destabilising “shadow operation” inside Downing Street to clear his path for the party leadership if Labour loses the next election.

The insider said: “There is now an operation within an operation at No 10 and it answers to Ed Balls.”

Related Links
The Master of the Dark Arts
Schools call in police 100,000 times a year
Cross them at your peril
Multimedia
BLOG: yes, but what about Charlie Whelan?
Balls’s behaviour has provoked a backlash from ministers, who fear his ambition is distracting the government from fighting the recession. Some insiders believe the shadow operation threatens to destroy Labour’s hopes of winning the general election.

The whistleblower, who has had a ringside seat on the power struggles inside No 10, claims that Balls:

— Engineered McBride’s move from civil servant to special adviser
— Repeatedly protected McBride when colleagues called for him to be sacked
— Was in constant contact with McBride, sending him up to 20 e-mails a day
— Instructed McBride to brief against cabinet rivals
— Exploits a weekly “strategy” meeting, which he chairs at Downing Street, to shore up his power base.

The whistleblower claims the prime minister is “strangely naive” about Balls’s activities: “He doesn’t see what’s going on. He unwittingly helps Ed by sidelining the ministers Ed sees as a threat.”

All the claims are denied by Balls, who labelled them “completely fabricated and malevolent nonsense”. A spokesman for Brown also dismissed the claims.

Senior Labour figures have confirmed there is widespread anxiety about Balls’s activities. The revelations will fuel concern that the government is in terminal decline, with senior ministers more worried about positioning themselves for life after defeat than about rescuing the economy.

The whistleblower, who has never spoken to the media before, was prompted to speak out through loyalty to Brown and the Labour party. He was angered by an interview given by Balls last week in which he distanced himself from McBride, who was forced to resign over plans to spread scurrilous rumours about senior Tories.

“In that interview, Ed called Damian ‘Mr McBride’ as if he barely knew him. In fact, Ed was running McBride. It was Ed who first spotted McBride’s talent, Ed who was behind his appointment as a special adviser and Ed who made sure he stayed in the job. Recently, McBride has been working almost entirely for him,” the whistleblower said.

Investigations by The Sunday Times have revealed that before the e-mail scandal, at least eight senior government figures urged Brown to dismiss McBride amid concerns that he was a liability. They included Lord Mandelson, the business secretary; Harriet Harman, the deputy Labour leader; Alastair Campbell, the former spin doctor; Lord Carter, the former No 10 strategy chief; Douglas Alexander, Labour’s election supremo; and two other Downing Street officials, David Muir and Nick Stace. It is understood Gus O’Donnell, the cabinet secretary, also raised concerns.

According to the insider, on each occasion Balls protected McBride, persuading Brown he was too valuable to lose: “Even before we got to Downing Street there were discussions about whether it was wise for McBride to come too. Some thought he should stay at the Treasury. But Ed blocked it.”

Balls, who has worked alongside Brown for 15 years, has made little secret of his ambition to become chancellor, saying only a month ago in an interview that he would “love” the job. Publicly he has claimed to have no “plan” to become party leader.

The insider claims Balls used McBride to help clear his path, “instructing” the spin doctor to brief against colleagues who could be a threat. Among his alleged targets were Alexander, David Miliband, the foreign secretary, and Jacqui Smith, the home secretary. He claims Balls hopes to replace Darling in the next reshuffle.

The whistleblower revealed that Balls was given the chairmanship of a weekly “strategy” meeting inside No 10 as a “sop” after the return of Mandelson to government. Regular attendees include Tom Watson, the junior cabinet minister, Charlie Whelan, political director of Unite, the UK’s largest trade union, and, until his resignation last week, McBride. Liam Byrne, another cabinet minister, also plays a prominent role but is not regarded as part of Balls’s “shadow operation”.

The whistleblower accused Balls of using the meetings to further his own agenda.

There is no suggestion Balls was aware of McBride’s plans to spread scurrilous rumours about David Cameron, the Tory leader, and George Osborne, the shadow chancellor. But Labour figures smeared by McBride believe the education secretary was behind their treatment.

A spokesman for Balls said: “These allegations are completely fabricated and malevolent nonsense without any foundation in fact. The only fact is that Ed Balls and Liam Byrne have jointly chaired a meeting on Wednesday afternoons at the express request of the prime minister.

“Other than that, Ed has spent all his time trying to do his best for children and young people. He has always acted in the best interests of the Labour government.”

A spokesman for Brown rejected the allegations as “absurd and preposterous”, denying that Balls had instructed McBride to brief against ministers. He said there was “nothing unusual” in the level of e-mail correspondence between Balls and McBride.

What will happen when the Ed Balls Brainwashing Programme starts in our schools?

2009-05-07T09:24:00.000-07:00

BOSTON, MA, May 5, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Early onset of sexual activity among teens may relate to the amount of adult content children were exposed to during their childhood, according to a new study released by Children's Hospital Boston. Based on a longitudinal study tracking children from age six to eighteen, researchers found that the younger children are exposed to content intended for adults in television and movies, the earlier they become sexually active during adolescence. The findings are being presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies meetings on Monday, May 4 in Baltimore.

"Television and movies are among the leading sources of information about sex and relationships for adolescents," says Hernan Delgado, MD, fellow in the Division of Adolescent/Young Adult Medicine at Children's Hospital Boston and lead author of the study. "Our research shows that their sexual attitudes and expectations are influenced much earlier in life."

The study consisted of 754 participants, 365 males and 389 females, who were tracked during two stages in life: first during childhood, and again five years later when their ages ranged from 12 to 18-years-old. At each stage, the television programs and movies viewed, and the amount of time spent watching them over a sample weekday and weekend day were logged. The program titles were used to determine what content was intended for adults. The participants' onset of sexual activity was then tracked during the second stage.

According to the findings, when the youngest children in the sample--ages 6 to 8-years-old--were exposed to adult-targeted television and movies, they were more likely to have sex earlier when compared those who watched less adult-targeted content. The study found that for every hour the youngest group of children watched adult-targeted content over the two sample days, their chances of having sex during early adolescence increased by 33 percent. Meanwhile, the reverse was not found to be true–that is, becoming sexually active in adolescence did not subsequently increase youth's viewing of adult-targeted television and movies.

David Bickham, PhD, staff scientist in the Center on Media and Child Health and co-author of the study commented: "Children learn from media, and when they watch media with sexual references and innuendos, our research suggests they are more likely to engage in sexual activity earlier in life."

As Ed Balls `puts the boot in` our English Bishops can only whimper.

2009-05-06T03:51:00.000-07:00

That the School Secretary Ed Balls is bitterly anti-catholic was obvious from his behaviour when Bishop O`Donoghue and a representative of the Bishop Vincent Nicholls. were summoned to a committee meeting in the House of Commons. Flimsy evidence based on `school meals` was presented as `evidence` that there was discrimination in Catholic schools admission policies. The accused were given no time to examine and comment on the `evidence`. It was reminiscent of Soviet Russia. And a frustrated Ed Balls, annoyed that these catholics were not cringing commented in an angry voice at one stage "Do you not accept the evidence of experts" Ignoring the fact that Catholic people also pay taxes Ed Balls is very concerned about `tax payers money`. It will be the tax payers however whether they like it or not who will pay for his next project - teaching children from four years about sex and from 11 years about homosexuality. The Cathlic Times tried to claim `victory` on this and that Ed had agreed that in Faith schools it would be taught in teir way. But this is 2009 and not 1970 and we know what is going on in Catholic schools. We also know the implications of the Soho Masses. But a picture of Oona Stubbs, Bishop Vent Nichols, and Ed Balls was released to convince us all was well. If the bishops did think this, then they will have been shocked and dismayed by Ed`s next bombshell - a £100 million request from Ed in order to repair Catholic Schools. Now you have to admire Ed Balls in one way. He is totally committed to his cause and if only our Bishops had been a little like him they would not now be in this mess. Ed is well aware that the Church does not have this sort of cash hanging around. Yet you have to give the Bishops a little, just a little, sympathy. They were conned by the world`s greatest trickster who is now challenging the Pope for leadershiop of the Catholic Church - Tony Blair. They were so foolish that they actually believed they had a voice in Government. Now they know the truth. What should the Bishops do about this £100 million demand? They may have to sell Church property and perish the thought actually sack some of their multi million pound bureacracy. Somehow I do not think they will do the latter though it would pay for most of the debt - they need their `friends` around them - they have so few and these boost their conficence. Here is my advice - just ditch the Catholic schools. They are `de facto` state schools already since 9 out of 10 pupils who start at four years do not come from homes with any religious background. We just put on the trimmings of taking them to Church, talking about a `catholic ethos`, and pretending their presence shows a vibrant community. It was the bishops who caused this when they stopped schools teaching the Catholic Faith and in the name of ecumenism forced them to teach religious indifference. State schools can also teach good citizenship and tolerance. Maybe catholic schools do well in examines but that it not thei purpose and has nothing to do with being catholic. We will srart again teaching our children from a parish level and we will not then have the mockery of sacramental preparation to indifferent children and families. The seventies have gone when the bishops full of enthusiasm for the `Spirit` of Vatican II decided they wuld promote Unity with Anglicans and others by ignoring Rome. They believed they could achieve this by `sticking together`. Their dreams have turned into a nightmare.

The Complete and utter contempt our bishops and bureacrats have for the Catholic People.

2009-05-04T05:59:00.000-07:00

Sometimes I wonder if my blog is too negative. Sometimes I am tempted to give up what some woud call `winging` then something happens and I know I just have to keep going. The latest `winge` is the contempt showin by the bishops and bureacrats for the Catholic people over sex educsation in our catholic schools. Contemptuously the Catholic Times describes that the Church has had a victory and sex education from 4 years and teaching homosexuality from 11 will be taught in a `catholic` way. What we must ask is "Is sex education today taught in catholic schools in a catholic way?" Unfortuanately the expereince of myself and thousands of parents is a resounding `no`. Many Catholic schoolteachers are as keen as Ed Balls, the atheistic Education Secretaryk, to ensure tat their values are passed onto the children They do not have the personal honesty to explore the Church`s teaching, Natural Family Planning, nor examine the growing success of `chastity`. Indeed, I wonder how many of them are divorced or separated as a result of not heeding the Church and thinking `for themselves`. The Universal Church which we many of us belong to but to which some try not to belong condemns all sex education in Primary Schools, and rightly, so there is `NO CATHOLIC WAY` The sad thing is that we know the paper was lying, the bishops and bureacrats know it was lying, the Catholic Education Service knows it is lying. But we are all involved in a Church of deceit that lying has become a way of life. Ed Balls certainly believes he is getting what he wants. He is a militant anti-catholic and he at least is not lying. He is silent because he got everything he wants from a cringing namby pampby Catholic Church. Little wonder he has soi jmuch contempt for it.

When will simple honesty return to the Church in England

2009-05-03T12:30:00.000-07:00

I went into the parish bookshop this morning. It is a pleasant small room full of books and objects of devotions. There was a samll book on preparation for Confession which I picked up. The book, written for children, went into the commandments and in a simple way explained to the children could break them. I thought it was terrific. I remarked on this but the lady on duty in the bookshop replied "It is one of the old fashioned books it talks about punishment" Now I had glanced through the book and found no ention of this and what was this she was saying about old fashioned books. I made my First Confession and First Holy Communion using old fashioned books and I do not remember anyone telling me about punishment and hell. The real objection was that it talked too much about sin. In our modern catachetics we are not to talk to children about such things. We atre not to tell them about right and wrong. Now this could be acceptable if modern catechetics had actually achieved anything. The fact is that it has been a complete and utter failure. Yet Tom, Dick and Harriet walk around the parish as though they were experts and ignore the obvious failures in what they are doing, consoling themsleves that it is much better than the `old fashioned` catechetics since that frightened children to death. O yes, I grew up trembling with fear with thousands of others because some bureaucrat from the Diocese chooses the `right` people for catechesis in the parish who are quite oblivious to the damage they are doing. A few years ago the `experts` decided that in St Joseph`s parish children would receive HOly Communion at the age of 9 and not 7. I did object that we were plart ofa Universal Cghurch that gave children the right to receieve at 7. But when you are an expert prodded by the diocesese you need not worry about the universal Church and the rights of the children. Nor do you worry about the views of the parishioners. You are the expert. One day there will be an outbreak of honesty in the Church and for the first time some pople will ask themselves "What are we doing? Well I can just pray and hope.

Julie Bentley fpa and Sex Education.

2009-04-30T06:16:00.000-07:00

I do not know personally Julie Bentley of the fpa. What I do know is that she promotes condoms for the rubber companies and `patients` for abortion to the lowest life in the medical profession - those doctors who earn money by killing babies. When the Tony Blair 10 year plan finished in abject failure Julie Bentley did not reflect or consider herself in any way a iailure - after all she had been distributing the condoms and arraging the abortions. Her favourite saying would be `Studies have shown...."even though the facts contradicted her. But Jule is loyal to her cause and finding out that the Government may be leaving Catholic schools to adopt their own policies on sex education she still believes she is a force to be reckoned with and immediately made the point that children should not be denied their `rights` to condom failure and abortion facilities. Faith schools must not teach, the highly moral lady said, that using condoms is wrong and parents must not be allowed to withdraw their children from the failing sex education classes. Dear Julie, you yourself have taught us the truth, that in the war against pregnancies condoms are useless. That is why many parents will be withdrawing their children. But do not worry about your job, condoms will still sell.

Why we need SSPX in full communion with the Church.

2009-04-28T04:02:00.000-07:00

I ran this story of the German Archbishop on a blog several days ago. I was astonished that it did not seem to make headlines elsewhere as it should have. Thanks however to the outspoken SSPX the Archbishop at last has been challenged. Let me say I have difficulties with SSPX members and they probably have difficulties with me but this is caused by our thirty years of separation. Read on..............................SSPX urges immediate withdrawal of false doctrine publically proclaimed by Archbishop Zollitsch

On Holy Saturday, the Chairman of the German Bishops' Conference, Robert Zollitsch, on "Horizons" (HR, 11. 4. 2009) denied the expiatory nature of the suffering and death of Christ. God through the suffering of his son, only showed solidarity with humanity in order to stand by them them in suffering and death. Indeed Jesus had taken on the sins of the people. He had not atoned for them, but but only born them from a sense of togetherness out in order to come close. False, indeed heretical, is the denial of expiatory sacrifice required by the Father. This denial according to the clear teaching of the Church can be seen as heresy! The Archbishop is hereby urged to withdraw his false public statements.

The crucial passage in the interview reads:

"You would now no longer describe it in such a way that God gave his own son, because we humans were so sinful? You would no longer describe it like this?"

"No. God had given his own Son in solidarity with us unto this last death agony and to show: so much are you worth to me, I go with you, and I am totally with you in every situation”.

Thereby the chairman of the German Bishops' Conference and Archbishop of Freiburg, Robert Zollitsch denies a dogma of the church. If he not withdraw this denial he runs the risk, according to canon law of formal heresy.

The doctrine of this church is clear:

The meretricious cause is the only begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ, "when we were enemies," [Rom 5.10], "because of the great love with which he loved us" [Eph 2,4], through his holy Suffering on the Wood of the Cross merited our justification [Ch. 10], and to God the Father, has made satisfaction for us (Council of Trent, DH 1529).

From Pius X. the decree "Lamentabili" the following sentence is condemned as modernism: "The doctrine of Christ’s expiatory death is no teaching of the Gospels, but only Pauline" (DH 3438).

The testimony of Scripture is inexhaustible. Here are just a selection:

"Now that we are justified by his blood ... we were reconciled by the death of his Son" (Rom 5.10).

"He has our sins in his body on the wood taken to Himself so that we, being dead to sin, are made righteous" (1 Pet 2.24).

"By his wounds have you been healed " (Is 53.6).

"This is my blood, shed for many for the forgiveness of sins" (Matt. 26.28).

To summarize, this can be said that Archbishop Zollitsch makes out of the expiatory sacrifice in reparation a " victim in solidarity " Christ suffers from a sense of community as therapeutic companion in our troubles, but not because the need of salvation from sin exists.

We therefore call on the Archbishop of Freiburg and chairman of the German Bishops' Conference to make an immediate retraction. This statement must be described as a heresy, and as setting aside the doctrine of the Catholic Church because from the mouth of a leading bishop it causes serious harm.

We hope that the clarification of this statement will occur publicly and in the next few days.

Supposing I could change the Church in England.

2009-04-26T06:51:00.000-07:00

I know that like poltiicians even in the Church wanting to do something is easier than actually being able to do it. You will always be surrounded by difficulties. Difficult or not supposing I was elected Cardinal of England what changes would I bring about or want to bring about and perhaps succeed with a little bit of help for my friend. The first thing I would down would cut down by at least three quarters the millions of pounds bureaucrats both at local diocesan level and at the Bishops Conference. Many of them come along with theology degrees not worth a damn and there only job seems to be to prevent the teaching or spread of the Catholic Faith. The next thing I would do would be to organise proper religious education which tells the pupils what the Catholic Church is and what she teaches. Yes I would have rote learning of the catechism since that worked a great deal better than what clever catholics claim, what they really object to is that it covered the basics of catholicism rather than the wishy washy ecumenical rubbish children are taught now. Yes, I would tell the children about God, the Pope, including infallibility, the doctrines on Mary and even the Immaculate Conception and original sin. The priests would have an educated laity on a Sunday morning and wuld find it hard to mislead their cmmunities. Sacramental programmes in the Church would not be carried out by Tom, Dick, or Harriet just because they needed a ministry the children deserve the best both in teaching and teachers. The teaching on Holy Communion would centre around Christ and the love of Christ, it is important for children from poor circumstances to know God loves them through this sacrament. They do not need this out of date nonsense which tries to persuade them that they have all these gifts, if this is supposed to help their self image the clever catholics should look at the results. No, a Eucharisitic programme must be centred on the love of God. As for Confirmation is there even anyone among the clever catholics who believe that the present programmeds are worthwhile? I would restore the traditional Saturday morning Mass and Confession. If a real hardcore sinner turned up for forgiveness I wonder how many priests today would have the time or knowledge to deal with him or her. Confession at convenient times for the prist are not conventient times for the laity. I would stop all the bribery by fun. You know what I mean. There is a day for children at such and such a place so wel tll the children not to worry about the Mass and devotions they will have to attend, just emphasise the `fun` bit. O yes, the children enjoy it OK - the fun bit - but what about the religiious parts well I suppose they were OK. But it is the only wayt I almost hear someone saying. Now when I was young and making my First Commu8nion I just loved to be in procession follwing a statue of Our Lady. The girls had all their pretty hite dresses and I wore a suit. Now I really enjoyed that. So that would be anotyer change. I would stop those Chruches where the children are not honoured at the front from insulting the children. The children would receive communion first- it is their day and all this silly sod let us not look too catholic family, community, rubbish would be thrown out. But of course I am not the next Cardinal and alas he will not have the power to do this in a grand scall either - more is the pity.

The BBC and the Gay Question.

2009-04-24T05:17:00.000-07:00

I just made a complaint to the BBC about that TV programme where the psychiatrist who believed he could `cure` gays was savaged. It all comes down to this. In this country of ``choice` why can people who do not want a gay lifestyle not be left alone. I believe that there is a meeting in London but the location is not advertised since last year the bully boys among the gays turned up to disrupt the meeting. If you want to complaint put BBC Complaints in your search engine.

Now in America the law is to be used to try to destroy christianity.

2009-04-24T04:31:00.000-07:00

I am not a lawyer. I know very little about the subject. One thing however I picked up through the years is that no government should pass a law which cannot be enforced. The Obama administration is now in a full attack upon christians and christianity and a proposed law had just been passed at committee stage pretending to protect gays from hatred. In fact it is an attempt to gag christians and the Catholic Church from making any criticisms of homosexuality. Pastors can be arrested for preaching from the bible that homosexuality is wrong. This is not an exaggeration for an attempt to exempt them was turned down. Gays are already well protected by law and this bill is not necessary by Obama has to pay back all those who made him President and this is the pay back to the homosexual supporters. Will we see them pastors putting away the bible and avoiding the subject. I cannot see this especially among the evangleicals. And we have a Catholic Church in America where the bishops opposition to Obama is now being totally justified although many catholics told them to mind their own business. Just think about it. We will be having the conscience clause regarding abortion removed, we have this attack on freedom of speech. While I was printing this there was a report on the BBC on a psychiatrist who thought he could cure homosexuality and was pointing out that this was because some homosexuals wanted it. He has just been giving short shrift by the `experts`. Apparently homosexuals only want to chang because of the pressures of society. Surely nobody would object to living the `gay lifestyle`. No, everyghing is wonderful there. As the hospitals who refuse to take their blood.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" A lesson from Germany.

2009-04-22T07:43:00.000-07:00

Remember all that fuss from the German Church when Pope Benedict dared to have talks and promote reconciliation with the SSPX. Then there was the branding of all SSPX as extreme right and holocaust deniers because of Bishop Williamson. What a mighty trumpet sounded from Germany. The POpe was even advised to resign. I had a couple of comments on my blog praising all this. I remembered the words of Jesus "lET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE" The GTerman bishops were only to happy to pick up the rocks. "Thy must accept Vatican II" thy shouted. Now we know the German bishops were the most unworthy and greater sinners than Williamson. In shouting "Vatican II" they were hiding their own miserble lack of faith in christianity never mind catholicism. It all came out in an interview of Archbishop Robertn Zalitsch, the chairman of the German Bishops conference, by Gloria.TV. The Archbishop no longer believes that Jesus died for the sins of the people it was just to show solidarity with the poor of the world. There was no expiatory suffering. I think I can say that this teaching not only contradicts Christ himself and the apostles, the teachings of St Paul, what the Church taught for two thousand years, what Protestants taught for four hundred years. Little wonder that in Germany there are so many abuses in the Mass, the Bishops just do not believe in it. As we have seen from the Austrian bishops any move from the Pope will be reisted but let us make it clear that anyone who now supports the German Bishops is `de iure` if not `de facto` outside the Church.

Gay Bigotry strikes again.

2009-04-22T04:36:00.000-07:00

LAS VEGAS, April 21, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Sunday's Miss USA 2009 pageant has become a lightning rod for the debate over Christian free speech in America, after one contestant lost the crown, according to one of the judges, because she answered in favor of true marriage when quizzed on the same-sex "marriage" debate.

Celebrity gossip Perez Hilton, one of 13 telecast judges in the competition aired live on NBC, asked Miss California's Carrie Prejean: "Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?"

Prejean answered: "I think it's great Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody there, but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be - between a man and a woman."

The answer clearly irritated Hilton, and drew both cheers and boos from the crowd. Miss North Carolina later won the Miss USA crown, with Miss California as first runner-up.

As the blogosphere reacted to the night's events, it was widely speculated - as both Hilton and Miss California later confirmed - that the answer cost Prejean the Miss USA title.

"She lost it because of that question. She was definitely the front-runner before that," Hilton told ABCNews.com yesterday.

Reacting to Prejean's answer on his popular gossip blog, Hilton, an open homosexual, called the answer "the worst answer in pageant history." "She lost, not because she doesn't believe in gay marriage, she lost because she's a dumb b*tch."

Catholic Bloggers? Are they evil?

2009-04-20T04:45:00.000-07:00

Recently the Tablet contained an article on Fr Tim Finegin, Parish Priest of Our Lady of the Rosary, Blackfen. Fr Finigan was merely obeying the document Summorum Pontificum in which the Pope had laid down the rules about when the Tridentine Mass or extraoridnary rite of Mass could be said. It even stooped so low as to hint at financial irregularities. For some reason, which has not yet surfaced but is the subject of speculatioon, the liberal bishops and their bureaucrats and fellow travellers have a terrible hatred for this Mass which the 40 Martyrs of England and Wales died. Normally the issue would have passed on and the Tablet would have congratutlated itself on a job well done. Who reads the magazine anyway? Unfortuately for the Tablet there is a whole new media in existence that cannot be censored. The Catholic Bloggers. News of this disgracefukl article circulated the globe and the Tablet was inundated with letters and calls they could hardly cope with. So the Tablet has turned its attention to the CAtholic Bloggers. Now sme very harsh things are said by catholic bloggers to which many bishops and bureaucrats object. So why are there Catholic Bloggers? I think, like myself, many have been frustrated in the past by trying to put right in the parish what was obviously not catholic but were slenced by sneers, rebuffs, and isolation. ON the blog they can now `hit back`. Many will have had my experience. "O you jus do not like change" "The Church has moved on" I remember on a catechetical couse run by a nun not only myself but my wife, who is a kindly woman, were treated to a special treatment because we knew what was being said was wrong and dared to say so. I was dismissed as a catechist even though I was very careful not to upset anyone. I even kept quiet when people were ranting and ravving that they did not need the Pope. Perhaps they knew however what I was thining. Then there was the constructive dismissal a achool governor. I had had a dispute with a visiting diocesan bureaucrat about how wonderful religious educatiion was in our schools now that Holy Pictures had been cast aside. I disgreed. This did ot please the remaining Governors. At the time I was a senior manager at a Day Services for the handicapped. As a Governor I put myself forward to look after the handicapped pupils but I was never involved and at the next AGM a stranger turned up and she was elected to this position. Was this Christianity at work? May I also say that at the time I was also Governor of another school and was very much wlecomed there, so it went beyond my capabilities. That is why I blog? That is why many others blog. The have tried the `new` Church and found it wanting in basic christianity.

The Church in America

2009-04-16T05:37:00.000-07:00

While traditionalists in Britain are still kept very much under the thumb ov the looney left in America things are changing rapidly. The Presidential elections in America saw the bishops there becoming very hostile to politicians who supported abortion and condoms. It will still be some time bnefore we have bishops of integrity in this country who will do so and perhaps there was a view that it was a little over the top. Now we see what th Bishops in America feared as a bill removing the right of conscience on abortion was passed through the Senate. Doctors would have to allow or perfrom abortions or lose their jobs. This has just reached the end of a thirty day consultation period and polss have shown 85% of the people were against it but there is not guarantee that Obama will give a damn. Again a committe has just advised police that pro-life groups could be extreme and violent and they should be on their guard. Some of the first things Obama did was to restore embryoinic stem cell research and the allow condom aid to Africa with the usual leftie slogan that we cannot ignore `scientific fact`` While all this is going on he CAtholic University of Notre DAme has invited Obama to receive an honorary degree. This has infuriated bishops and people and a petition of 230,000 signatures so far has gone to the University. So in the USA they have more to contend with than the Latin Mass. But what happens in America usually happens here 10 years later. Here is hoping.

The new Archibishop of New York will oppose `enlightenment`

2009-04-14T04:33:00.000-07:00

It was wonderful to read the words of the soon to be Archibishop Dolan of New York. He is going to oppose this idea that Catholics are `unenlightened` in their opposition to Gay Marriage and Abortion. He also stated that he wants to restore to the faithful a feeling of pride in being Catholic. This is all very well but very unecumenical. We have been told over the past forty years how nasty we were prior to Vatican II. How we thought we were the only ones going to heaven and despised Protestants. And as the Faith disappears from England we rejoiced that our children were not being brainwashed in our Catholic schools. To love the Church was somehow `immature` and to say `I am a Catholic and proud of it` was not the done thing. Maybe it was the many times I was told by non`catholics that I was not going to heaven in my Church. Maybe it was the charges of idolaty and Mary worship. Maybe it was the charge that the Catholic church was all show and no humility. Maybe it was the fear priests had of proclaiming the Gospel and call sin a sin and a spade a spade in case they offended someone and broke the `spirit` of community. Whatever the reason I did not take easily to this enlightment which told me I should be ashamed of my past. Now an Archbishop has told me to be proud I am a Catholic. How wonderful!

Some thoughts on the sermon by Bishop Hollis at the Chrism Mass

2009-04-13T07:57:00.000-07:00

In the chrism Mass last Tuesday Bishop Hollis reflected on the ministry of the preists and deacons. He rightly pointed out the expectation of the laity that through them they could encounter God in a speical way. He rightly referred to their leadership role. He went on to say "Without priests there can be no Mass and no real life in the Catholic Community as we know and love it" Thi is quite a statement and one that needs a great deal of thought when weighed against the Diocesan Pastoral Plan. While it is true that there is a growing shortage of priests in the diocese it is far from clear that the Pastoral Plan was the only way ahead. What was needed was a frank and honest discussion on how we arrived at this position. This should have preceded any plan but such a discussion was lacking. Instead those who had takne up the fanaticism for change in the seventies and eighties ruled the roost and began to shape the Chuch in Portsmouth accordng to their ideology. The total falure of religious education in Catholic schools was ignored yet without a knowledge and love of the Church from where could vocatons come. Yet indoctrination was brought in as a bad word to persuade people that the teachings of the catechism was some sort of brainwashing. Children who practice their faith in Catholic schools today are actually ridiculed by other pupils The misrepresntation of the Decree on Ecumenism took te evangelical spirit out of Catholicsm. Respect for the Blessed Sacrament was almost throttled. A Chruch nearby which dumped the Blessed Sacrament in a corner and pretended it was some act of reference now has people coming in the door and totally ignoring its presence. This alas was the object of putting it there. Then we complain there are no priests. The bishop spoke of the leadership of preists. This comes hard from a diocese with a £2million bureaucracy that comes between the Bishop and his preists. Priests can organise a Communion Programme, preists can organise a Confirmation programme, priests can supervise the teaching of the faith in local schools, priests can find Religious Education Resources for Schools. They do not need the interference of bureaucrats nor do they need lay people being appointed by the bureaucracy as chaplains, agasnt the ruling of the Holy Father. There is no unity in parishes where the appointees of bureaucrats rule the roost. There is just an elite others despise. Bring back the life of the Catholic Community as we have known it and sack your bureacrats who by the way have been found wanting by many people in knowledge of the Church. If you are not prepared to fact up to the real world in which our children are growing up it would be better to say nothing.

The BBC and its Merry Men.

2009-04-11T15:07:00.000-07:00

I have always been fascinated by the rather prejudicial view of Protestants with regard to the Catholic Church and the Bible. They must hold on at all costs to the idea that the Catholic Church prevented people reading the Bible and that somehow they were holding it back lest the people discover the truth. The truth is that translations were going on all over the world. The psalms were translated into Agnlo-Saxon in the eigth century and the Venerable Bed translated the Bible into Anglo Saxon. But of course very few people would have read these since they could not read and there was no great duplication of translations since there was no fast means to do so. It was from about the 12th Century onwards when the great universities of Europe were founded by the Catholic Church that scholars who were not clerics began to look at these scripures, translate, and read them. Wycliffe was such a scholar. The nobility were reading translations of the Bible in French but Wycliffe was the fistst to set about the translation of the whole Bible into English. With other translations into colloquial language around Europe the Church had no quarrel with and English translation but the translations of Wycliffe andhis friends was poor and full of errors. For this reason the Church condemned it. When printing was introduced there was translatioins by faithful catholic people as well as Protestant. When the Protestants met at Geneva to try and work out a common interpretation they failed miserably. But the myth that the Bible was theirsand only theirs and they had been kept in ignorance by the Church persisted and it was good propoganda. But what has all this to do with the BBC? When I was young one of my first books as a boy was Robin Hood. The great hero who robbed the rich to helpl the poor. Perhaps it is this idea of helping the por that has attracted the BBC to making more and more vesions of the Robin Hood story. One favourite character was Friar Tuck the jovial monk. In the last series the BBC for the sake of Political Correctness dropped the good friar and we had a moslem lady instead. I watched the latest version tonight and the PC people had been at work again. Yes, Tuck was back but he was Brother Tuck and a coloured gentleman. The episode tonight centtred around a Prior who had secretly translated the Bible into English. "Do you mean to say people will be able to translate Adam and Eve, the Flood, for themselves?" once character remarked. Finding this English translation the Sherrif began to blackmail the Prior since of course he was `in trouble with Rome`. It may at first seem harmless but by perpetuating the myth the BBC is able to attack the Catholic Church in a very sneaky way since many young people wll beleive it.

Good Friday - My Dream

2009-04-10T02:57:00.000-07:00

I saw my Jesus kneeling in the garden, I saw the tears that glistend on His face.
I heard him ask the Father for my pardon and that of all this sinful human race,
I watched the crowd of hatefilled me surround him, "Is this the one we seekF", their voices hiss
I hear my own voice answer "Yes, we`ve found him" I see myself betray him with a kiss

I saw the awful anguish as they scurged him, with every stroke his eyes were filled with tears
He did not cry for mercy as they ur him, since every stroke atoned for sinful years
And as he stood there suffering this violence, I pleaded with the soldiers "Set him free!"
But suddenly my voice was lost in silence, I saw the soldier scourging him was me.

Of all his earthyly garments now they rent him, and swore that they would give this King and crown
They gathered thorns to torture and torment him, which deep into his skull they hammered down,
I watched the blood flow out like gushing rivers, his head became a cushion for their pins,
They thought came, and the cold night made me shiver, that every thorn was fashioned by my sins.

They placed the shameful cross upon his shoulders, three times he fell beneath the heavy load,
But spat upon and whipped along by soldiers, he made his lonely way along the road,
"Is this the great Messiah" they were calling, "Is this the King of Kings" they cried aloud
His love for me had brought him to this falling, but I just stood there laughing with the crowd.

Upon the loathsome cross the soldiers nailed him, and raised him high for everyone to see
Abandoned now, for all his friends had failed him, he cried "My God, have you forsaken me?"
And then he whispered "Father, p[lease forgive them, they know not on what evil path they trod"
The sinful heart within me dies there with him as on my knees I cry "My Lord and God"

The Cross of Christ now stands there in its glory, a thing os shame but still a thing of pride,
For on its wood was played this awesome story that God made Man for love was crucified.
Yet still so thankless is this world we live in, so full of hate and killing, war and pain
And every day he whispers "Please forgive them" and every day is crucified again.

And still on Hisory: Today just 500 years ago Henry VIII became KIng.

2009-04-09T06:25:00.000-07:00

As a young man Henry was reputed to be a really nice guy. He stayed married to Catherine of Aragon befofe in middle age he became attracted to the younger women and started a life of rape and debauchery and having little compassion for people began to kill indiscriminately for his own ends. He truly became a pawn of Satan. That this man should declare himslf head of any Christian Church never mind the Catholic one and that even today people are taking this title seriously, an innovation of the devil himself is `beyond my ken`. It is ridiculous. To even mention it is tosummon up the picture of people being slaughtered and beheaded, and women being held in contempt. The title was given Henry by the Pope when he was living a respectable life and defending the faith, it was carried on by the Reformers as some sort of continuity of the Church of England with the earlier Church. Prince Charles is not happy with it. Nor is any thinking person. Do not change it - just abolish it.

Queen Mary of Scotland and Darnley

2009-04-09T05:35:00.000-07:00

I am reading a fascinating book at the moment `The Life of Mary Stuart, Queen of Scotland` It is by an historian called Agnes Strickland and with deference to Antonia Fraser was the fitst full biography of the life of that Queen. The book did not receive the plaudits it deserved for in the 19th Century as indeed it is today no novelist was welcome who dared to criticise the myth of `Good Queen Bess` She was labelled as lacking objectivity despite the documents she quoted. One of the most dreadful charges made against Mary was that she murdered her husband Lord Darnley. Darnley had certainly offended her in the way he wanted to be King and share power with her. He became a pawn for the nobles who actually despised him. It was they who persuaded him that David Riccio, the Queen`s private secretary was having an affair with Mary. He should put him in his place. it was Darnley who used a secret key to the Queens bedroom to let the nobles in who then proceeded to kill not only Riccio but two attempts were made on the life of Mary herself. When they kept Mary prisoner in Holyrood they insisted that Darnley be wth her andit gradually dawned on him that he too was a prisoner. From then on he mistrusted every noble in Scotland and they treated him with contempt. Eventually these Lords decided to be rid of Darnley and Mary, and when Darnley became ill in Glasgow they circulated rumours that the Queen had poisoned him. Eventually small pox appeared on his face and Mary came to see her husband and was so full of pity that she began to nurse and make him better. Let us take the story from Agnes Strickland "The Queen now devoted herself in the care of her husban, and his temper was so chastened by his recent illness that he began to give promise of becoming all that a fond wife could desire. While he continued in quarantine Mary only left him for short periods to get air and exercise, when she walked with Lady Reres in the garden of the ruined Dominican convent which adjourned that of the Kirk O`Field, and occasionally sand guets with her under the window of the invlaid who was exceedingly fond of music. Sometimes she sent for the Royal BAnd fro Holyrood House to play in the garden of an evening. In short, there never was a princess whose conduct allowed a more touching example of the tender characteristics of her sex" Agnes Strickland draws our attention to this since there was already a plot from the nobles to kill Darnley and the calumny made against Mary that she murdered him herself has no basis in fact. Mary had wanted to move Darnley from Glasgow to Craigmillar but it was the nobles who insisted on Kirk O`Field.

Now Cherie join in. Who do the Blairs think they are?

2009-04-08T14:19:00.000-07:00

Following on her husband`s infallible statment on homosexuals, Cherie Blie has criticised the Pope about his remarks on condoms. It was the usual nonsense about `scientific evidence showing` when no scientific evidence is being presented. We heard all this from the British Pregnancy Advisory Service through the seventies, eighties, and nineties about teenage preganancy which is now higher than ever. yet theonly evidence we observed as indeed we now observe about Aids is that there is no difference being made to the situation whatsoever. Is this the role that Caridnal Murphy-O`Connor gave this scandalous couple. Did he convert Tony so that he couls say the things he was scared to say. He should apologise to his flock for allowing this couple to roam the world claiming they are `catholics in good standingf`

Tony the model catholic Blair wants the Pope to change the teaching of the Church on homosexuality.

2009-04-08T12:30:00.000-07:00

Who instructed Tony Blair on the Catholic Faith? Who taught him the truths of the Catholic Faith? WAs the infallibility of the Church on faith and morals taught? Did anyone explain the uniqueness of the human and heir relationship with God and why abortion is wrong? Did anyone tell him the truth about homosexuality? O was it just a case of teaching him about the loving community and not to take Jesus Christ too seriously. Just love the poor! The more we hear the bilge from Tony6 the more we have to ask about the integrity of those who brought him into the Church. To Tony the Pope has an entrenched position on homosexuality. Some of his best friends are homosexuals. Perhaps Tony could tell us why homosexuals cannot give blod and even in America doctors have refused to take their blood? Perhaps he can explain the constant changing of partners as they swap one another looking for `sexual highs` Perhaps he can also explain the growing number of married men who are leaving their wives to indulge in this activity. The present Pope has called this filth and at the rsk of a knock at the door I agree with him. Homsexuality is forbideen by the Church and has been for two thousand years. We are not animals but people of dignity.

OBAMA TAKES AWAY FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE; Christian Doctors will perform abortions or lose their jobs., Catholic hospitals may well be closed.

2009-04-08T07:13:00.000-07:00

There was quite a furore going on America during the Presidential elections. Some, but nof of course all, catholic bishops were opposing Obama on the grunds of abortion. Some catholic politicians, at least one call herslef a `devout` catholic were supporting abortion. ~Seperation of Church and State was the call of many liberal catholics who `could think for themsleves`. After the elections there were calls for bishops to refuse `holy communion` to these Obama politicians. That at first seemed very harsh to me. But now we have the pay off and we know that the bishops were right. Obama is the most exteme abortionist that has held office. He is paying back those who funded him by extreme measures. Now a bill has been passed thnrough the Senate which removes the right to conscinece in the matter of abortion. Christan doctors no longer can claim the right to conscience and will lose their jobs, even face imprisonment for refusing abortions. Catholic hospitals may be forced to close if they refuse to allow abortions. No doubt the leftie politicians ins Britain are wetting their lips and with the weakness and cowardice of our bishops as revealed in the homosexual adoption fiasco they will get their way.

Archbishop Vincent Nichols: now that the dust has settled.

2009-04-07T05:57:00.000-07:00

The appointment of Archbishop Nichols to Westminister has had a mixed reception. Perhaps it is because the Archbishop himself is a kind of mixed up guy. I must say first that his record as one in charge of Religious Education in schools is appalling. On this he has ignored Pope Benedict on sexual educatioin in Primary schools and was working with the Government to introduce this, but as he said, `in a catholic way`. But waht he meant by this we do not know and we must also remember that he was working for the Bishops Conference of England and Wales and maybe didnot have the free hand we think he had. We must at this stage give himn the benefit of the doubt since he has the chance of making a new start. He has a confused stand on homosexuals, one moment cndomning the sexual orientation bill` but on the other hand allowing a homosexual Mass to take place in his diocese, thereby encouraging indirectly the rights of homosexuals in this matter. Ok, he made other boobs, but we must take him from where he is now. He will soon be the new Archbishop of Westminster and will have to set about winning respect for himself. Perhaps he feels he should be respectred for his position, yes, he should but what other bishops have not caught onto is that as a man he will have to earn respect, it must be commanded rather than demanded a point many of our present bishops should dwell on. We must pray for Archbishop Nichols. He will either rise to be the salvatiion of the Church in England or turn out to be an unmitigated disaster.

Of Beautiful Things.

2009-04-06T07:11:00.000-07:00

My grandaughter is only three years old but when she was taken to a school of dancing she decided she did not want to do any tap her only interest was in ballet. She now does one or two basic movements. On Saturday she sat beside me on the computer and I put into the search engine `ballet` she got escited when some ballet dancers appeared. I thought she would be interested as children ususlly are only for a few moments but she insisted on replay after replsy. I eventually had the inspiration to look up Swan Lake and the dance of the Dying Swan. She was enraptured. I pointed out the grace of the movements, how the dancer had trained for years to stand on her toes and pirouette. Now I am no ballet expert. But there was something graceful and beautiful here which caught my imagination as much as hers. Beauty is something that seems to be disappearing. If you want to quckly find the ugliest building in any town just ask someone where the latest building development is. The uglilness is usually justified on the grounds that it is modern. We are even building Churches in this fashion There is a new Church in my town I just hate to go into, the art is so ugly, yet like the subjects in the story of the `Emperors New Clothes` catholics are saying it is beautiful because that is what is expected of them. OK there was always tatty art in the Church and I have looked upon faces of the Virgin Mary that have made me want to pewk but the majority of art was not of this kind. Most art was beautiful and there are the Michael Angelo works like the Pieta which catch your breath. That is what art is meant to do - catch your breath and make you think of the beauty that is beyond this work of man or nature. Thomas Aquinas likened the search for beauty to the search for God. He is the ultimate beauty. Thankfully there are still many of our Churches in England the iconoclasts could not touch. Where we are surrounded by statues of Mary and the saints, their presence reminding us tat we are of one communion as we say in the Creed yet the iconoclasts fail to understand. Should I mention the Cathedral where all the statues have been moved to the back door? I hope nobody every tries to tell me that this came from Vatican II. Our Churches are not there to please Protestants but to teach Catholics the Faith and express the Faith. Statues are important to catholics. They are the means by which we honour the persons they represent, the angels and saints who are with us at every Mass. In our world there is very little beauty in music or in ordianry life. As my grandaughter sat on my knee I vowed she at least in my lifetime would know beautiful things.

John Snoow was more interested in attacking the Pope than helping the people of Africa.

2009-04-04T04:57:00.000-07:00

I have been reflecting on my last post. I am becoming more and more certain that the condom pedlars have no interest whatsoever in the people of Aftica except to decrease the population. Let us look again at JOhn Snow. HIs first question to the `Studies show..." lady was "Do you see abstincence working in Africa?" Had he bothered to do some research on what the Pope actually said and what the programme was discussing namely what the Pope said he would have noticed that the Pope did not mention abstinence. The POpe was on about the people changing their behaviour and leading monogamous lives, true to one partner. Perhaps so many of the media cannot catch on to this because of the lives they lead. Perhaps they feel guilty, so they use the Catholic Church as a fall guy. But they must keep it going so like John Snow they fall back on the irrelevant argument about one partner having Aids and the other not having Aids. Surely condoms should be allowed? Joanna Boagle was right to shout here. How dare John Snow reduce lov to sex. If I had aids I would never dream of risking my wife with the virus. I love her too much. Our marriage means much more than legal sex so I would not look upon her as some sex prostitute. Then there is this wonderful faith in condoms. The manufacturers have proved, scientfically of course that they are 100% effective. The nanufacturers of Persil have also shown, I should add that Persil washes whiter. We are in a recession now becaue of the greed of business people making as muich money as they can. The Rubber companies are not exempt from this. We may lose money we have banked, but Africans are losing their lives. I am gald Joanna Boggle got angry because as she said and John Snow did not understand `millions of people are dying`. What an evil world we live in.

Do they give a damn/ The Joanna Bogle interview.

2009-04-03T14:03:00.000-07:00

Through the change of waveband on my PC I was at last able to listen to the interview on condoms with Joanna Bogle. JOhn Snow was an absolute disgrace. At one time he murmured about Joanna introducing Godand and Christ into the interview. He had not intention of accepting anything Joanna said. If the woman beside her is an example of Christian Aid then I will certainly never be collectng for that agency again. Her main contribution was `Studies have shown...." and of course quoting no studies. She claimed that condoms had brought down HIV in some areas when there is not evidence whatsoever to confim this. The obvious comparison between the Phillipines and Thailand was dismissed and of course we had `Studies have shown...." Does anyone care for the people of Africa. Well, one thing we know the Pope does.

CONGRATULATIONS TO ARCHBISHOP VINCENT NICHOLS

2009-04-03T03:43:00.000-07:00

Pope Benedict has appointed Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Birmingham as the new Archbishop of Westminster who will eventually become Cardinal. All loyal catholics will accept the decision of the Pope and wish Archbishop Nichols well and pray for him as he takes up his appointment. It is a time of hope and we give him the loyalty he deserves.

Why the Church survives.

2009-04-01T08:51:00.000-07:00

In my sister blog Marian Conversion of England I quoted the Essay by Lord MacAulay the 19th century Protestant historian. What interested him was that despite the fact that kingdoms and institutions come and go the Roman Catholic Church still carries on. This survival of the Church he puts down to the Papacy. There is no doubt that this central figure is the principal that unites the Catholic Church. Many have objected to and broken away from Rome but have become weak and eventually disappeared. Yet this does not fully explain its survival. Rome was attacked by Huns and Franks. Napoleon and others kidnapped and humiliated the Popes. At times it looked like its existence was about to end. Yet it survived when the Roman Empire did not, Napoleon and his Repbulic have gone buy today the Papacy is still strong and as vigorous as ever. As we have seen very recently many can speak on faith and morals and be totally ignored but what the Pope says arouses either applause or hostility. The Church s hated as Christ was hated or loved as Christ was loved. I was amused to read that the Pope should not have mentioned condoms on his way to Africa but the Church is like Christ not economical nor diplomatic with the truth. It is too serious a matter. The real reason the Church survives does not come down to its human structure but because it is not a human institution as MacAuley noted but a Divine one. The Pope is loved and hated as Christ was loved and hated when he teaches the way of God to the world. Lord MacAuley`s essay should be read by those who believe they can ignore the Pope and get along with controlling their own local community. They are doomed. When they are gone their Church will crumble.

My New Blog.

2009-03-28T07:25:00.000-07:00

After my last post I got to praying and thinking and came up with the blog I threatened to write. It is www.theconversionofengland.blogspot.com. Hopefully there will be a link on the left.

Quo Vadis? Or if my Latin is correct `Quo vadeo?"

2009-03-27T04:41:00.000-07:00

So I have been supporting the Catholic cause for nearly two years now. I have in my lowly wa `exposed` or joined in the exposition of the sorry state of the Catholic Church in this country. I have joined and supported other bloggers in their endeavours to bring the truth to others. Lately I have been giving a great deal of thought to where we are now. I have felt somehow that something is missing. Sure we have great websites and blogs, many movements supporting family life and values but we need unity somehow and that got me thinking about a leader. To do what? Since the Catholic Faith is now virtually unknown in this country because of a false approach to ecumenism we need to unite to preach and teach the Catholic Faith. We need to convert England. Who will lead us? Our Mother Mary. After all England is her dowry. We must give it back to her. Well that is quite a mouthful I have spouted - the conversion of England? Through Mary? Well, she is not so popular is she? Yes, but she is very powerful. We have all been victims of the attacks on her position yet if we examine what she wants we will see that the way ahead is by proclaiming her fearlessly and proudly. Tke her requesto for Russia to be consecrated to her Immaculate Heart. For political and diplomatic reasons this was not done rather the whole world was consecrated. Yet this is not what she asked. We were afraid to do so in the face of hostility. We were lackingin faith. This must not happen in England. I have some thoughts emergin on this them of the conversion of England. We will not be just converting the Reformers but our fellow catholics who do not know the faith. Does this mean we will be going around with the catechims in our hands. No. It means that we will through her be living a trly catholic life that it will be a gospel to others. `Preach always" said St Francis "and sometimes use words". I have a great many houghts on this and it all started when my Rosary group which meets after morning Mass started saying the prayer for the Conversion of England. I have decided to start a new blog on this very theme. This blog will not be abandoned for if chastisment is needed it will happen. What do you think of all my babblings.?

Professor Paton of Nottingham University Business School

2009-03-27T04:36:00.000-07:00

When policy interventions have unexpected impacts which subvert the aim of the policy, economists often refer to the ‘Law of Unintended Consequences’. In this case, by lowering the pregnancy risk, easier access to birth control may encourage more young people to engage in sexual activity. If so, numbers of pregnancies decrease amongst those who would have had sex anyway, but increase amongst those who have sex when they otherwise would not have done. Overall, we end up with a similar number of pregnancies but with more underage youngsters being sexually active. Even worse, many birth control methods offer no protection against sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Indeed, research in the Sex Education journal suggests that increased access to EBC may be associated with higher teenage STI rates.

Traditionalists; the enemy of what has been achieved.

2009-03-25T08:07:00.000-07:00

`The ongoing revision of the ordinary rite, and the introduction of the extraordinary rite, together represent the same process of the surrender of the liturgy to the reactionary, spirit-quenching, traditionalist minority; and the surrender of the entire Church runs in parallel, making a mockery of the life of the Church before both God and the world.
It gets better:
There was a great move of the Spirit in the Church in Council in our time just over 40 years ago. I weep for its cold-hearted rejection now, and the horrific global consequences that will follow if they are allowed to continuef`.

The above is a quote from a letter in the TABLET. Its writet believes that his version of Vatican II is the only authentic one: he probably has never read the documents but is filles with the `Spirit of Vatican II` I could argue that the traditionalists he condemns are far from `cold hearetedly` rejection of the Council but let us esamine just what he has to hold onto and about which he feels so betrayed. Is it the thousands of people who leave the Church every year leading to parish closures? Well, certainly the Spirit would be very much involved. Is it the fact that we have reached the point where 95% of children who attend Catholic Schools come from no religious background whatsoever? Is it the way these children are taken to School Masses to receive communion when they have no real belief? Though it must be said many do remove the chewing gum from their mouths before receiving. Is it the fact that great care is taken in the schools not to teach catholic docrine or devotions which prevents them being indoctrnated and alien to their neighbours? Well there is much to be proud of there? Is it the determination of the Church to be popular with the Government and ensuring that condoms are given their proper place in relationship teaching? What a spirit of freedom. Is it the fact that our children then have pregnancies, sexually trnasmitted diseases, and Aids just like any other communities? Thank God for Vatican II. Is it the ability we have found of ensuring their are few men in our Churches to attract to the Priesthood? Is it the tolerance of divorce and the ecouragement of broken familes by showihng compassion for those who will not follow the teachings of Christ? But mosyt of all, is it the surrender of ecumenism - that wonderful world where we accept every other faith as part of the Church, where we look on those seperated from us with compassion and love, unjudgementally, except in certain cases of course like the SSPX and the Traditionalsit wing of the Church? Is it the fact that we have an English Church here which should have nothing to do with the rest of the Church and the return of univerality by promoting Latin is contrary to this? Or perhaps the writer has reached the humility of a child and is shoutihg "My way is better than yours" To surrender such things must be horrific to the writer, smeting of global magnitude. Woe on those viscious and hateful catholic bloggers who dare to metniton thes things. They and their spirit quenching faith. We must fight and be rid of them or there will be global catastrophe. Catholics will take the Church seriously again.

Joanna Bogle in outstanding form despite the provocation.

2009-03-20T07:59:00.000-07:00

2009-03-20T06:23:00.000-07:00

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1184614595/bctid16748122001

And this from Cardinal Murphy-O`Connor

2009-03-20T06:16:00.000-07:00

Sir, I was appalled at the tasteless cartoon depicting Pope Benedict XVI. No newspaper should show such disrespect to a person who is held in high esteem by a large proportion of Christians in the world. To pillory the Pope in this way is totally unacceptable. As to what Pope Benedict said, it would be wiser for people to look at the issues that he was raising in his remarks. It is certainly true that the widespread distribution of condoms can run the risk of greater promiscuity and that the best way to combat the Aids epidemic is by healthcare, education and fidelity in married life. Even if people do not accept the Church’s teaching in this matter, it is a well-known fact that the greatest contribution to health care for those living with Aids in Africa is given by the Catholic Church.

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor