"Let's stop hissing and spitting over the Pope's visit.
The Holy Father's trip to Britain will be miserable for everyone if we don't change our tone."
Stuart Reid in The Catholic Herald - 30.7.2010
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2010/07/30/let%e2%80%99s-stop-hissing-and-spitting-over-the-pope%e2%80%99s-visit/
Friday, 30 July 2010
Thursday, 29 July 2010
Savage Punishment - 77 days on
Catholic Family News - 29.7.2010 www.cfnews.org.uk
Damian Thompson has taken up the story of the exiled members of the Birmingham Oratory in his Daily Telegraph blog 'Papal visit: where are the three 'disappeared' Oratorians, ask parishioners'.
He writes : 'Parishioners of the Birmingham Oratory have written an open letter to the Oratorian priest acting as the Vatican's delegate to the Congregation, asking about the fate of two priests and a brother who - though not accused or suspected of any sexual impropriety - were mysteriously sent into exile in May.
This is a complex business, but it strikes me that the Birmingham Oratory really needs to display some transparency now, rather than let the matter fester until Pope Benedict XVI visits them in September. As The Times reported on May 21, the then Provost of the Birmingham Oratory, Fr Paul Chavasse, had left his post amid allegations of a 'close but chaste' relationship with a young man. But he was not the only Oratorian forced to leave:
Father Philip Cleevely, Father Dermot Fenlon and Brother Lewis Berry have been told 'to spend time in prayer for an indefinite period' by Father Felix Seldon, the priest appointed to conduct an 'apostolic visitation'.
The Tablet reports today that Father Cleevely has gone to Pluscarden Abbey, Moray, Father Fenlan to Mount Saint Bernard Abbey, Leicestershire, and Brother Berry to somewhere in France.
But why were these three Oratorians given this savage punishment? Their supporters have been trying to find out, to no avail: all we have to go on are rumours about 'disputes over the beatification of Newman', which could mean anything. If these Birmingham Oratorians are innocent of wrongdoing, should they really be excluded from the greatest moment in the history of their Congregation?
I've just spoken to a senior (and non-partisan) lay Catholic who felt that this apparent injustice should be highlighted despite the dangers of rocking the boat so soon before the papal visit. So here is the open letter (Ed. published by CF NEWS on July 25th) . Time for some answers.
An Open Letter to Father Felix Selden CO, Delegate of the Apostolic See for the Confederation of the Oratory, from parishioners of the Birmingham Oratory and members of the National Association of Catholic families.
We are grateful to Father Felix Selden for having had the courtesy to reply to our letter of 1st July, in which we enquired about the return of Father Dermot Fenlon, Father Philip Cleevely and Brother Lewis Berry to the Birmingham Oratory. Unfortunately none of our questions were answered. His argument appears to be that as mere lay people, we have no right to know what is going on at the Birmingham Oratory. However we are parents, chosen by God to discharge the duty of protecting vulnerable young people in a society at war with our values. We have seen the inexplicable removal of two priests and a brother who have exerted themselves heroically in the defence of our Catholic families. Consequently, our family and others are now left much more vulnerable. I am afraid that is very much our business and indeed intimately affects our families: we have every right to a coherent explanation of what is going on, and an assurance that these priests and brother will be returned to their ministry with us forthwith.
Father Selden expresses concern that lay people are protesting the conduct of the Apostolic Visitation and suggests that this is creating scandal 'and might dangerously harm the Church and the Oratory of Birmingham'. It is very difficult to read this in any other way than as a veiled threat. Is there a threat here of direct action against the lay protestors, or indirect action against the two priests and brother concerned if the lay people cannot be silenced? We are bound to point out that the scandal was absolutely not of our own making. We will not easily forget the look of bewilderment on our children's faces when they heard from the pulpit the announcement of the expulsion of these three holy men with no explanation, and the difficult task we have (and continue to have) in trying to mitigate the enormous scandal that has been done to these little ones. There is a very ready remedy: bring back those of our good pastors who are innocent of any wrong doing (as we have been assured is the case with these three).
No threat will convince us as parents to remain silent: the threat from the immoral culture all around us, which in many sad cases has infiltrated the Catholic Church even to the extent of compromising some of her pastors, is far more deadly to us than anything that might be done to silence us. We love the Catholic Church very much but cannot elevate Church reputation and image above our children's moral safety. Our children's very souls are at stake and we will not be silence.
We ask once again: are these three holy men going to be returned to Cardinal Newman's Oratory where they belong or not? If they are to return, when will that be? [Telegraph]
In his SPUC Director's blog, John Smeaton picks up on Damian Thompso's Telegraph blog, noting that he had raised the question of the clerics' expulsion in a number posts 'as to whether their removal can be traced to the clear, coherent critique made by these Oratorians against the obvious and very serious dangers posed by the former government's sex and relationships education proposals contained within the Children, Schools and Families bill, a stance sharply at variance with Archbishop Nichols and the Catholic bishops' conference of England and Wales.
As I've said before: What on earth are Catholics and non-Catholics to make of the situation? On the one hand three staunch pro-life, pro-family advocates suffer apparently peremptory ecclesiastical injustice. On the other hand Archbishop Nichols, just a couple of months ago, was painting the previous government's intentions on sex and relationships education in an entirely positive light - when those intentions included continuing to enable the promotion and facilitation of abortion, contraception and homosexuality in schools, including Catholic schools. [SPUC] 1661.26
Damian Thompson has taken up the story of the exiled members of the Birmingham Oratory in his Daily Telegraph blog 'Papal visit: where are the three 'disappeared' Oratorians, ask parishioners'.
He writes : 'Parishioners of the Birmingham Oratory have written an open letter to the Oratorian priest acting as the Vatican's delegate to the Congregation, asking about the fate of two priests and a brother who - though not accused or suspected of any sexual impropriety - were mysteriously sent into exile in May.
This is a complex business, but it strikes me that the Birmingham Oratory really needs to display some transparency now, rather than let the matter fester until Pope Benedict XVI visits them in September. As The Times reported on May 21, the then Provost of the Birmingham Oratory, Fr Paul Chavasse, had left his post amid allegations of a 'close but chaste' relationship with a young man. But he was not the only Oratorian forced to leave:
Father Philip Cleevely, Father Dermot Fenlon and Brother Lewis Berry have been told 'to spend time in prayer for an indefinite period' by Father Felix Seldon, the priest appointed to conduct an 'apostolic visitation'.
The Tablet reports today that Father Cleevely has gone to Pluscarden Abbey, Moray, Father Fenlan to Mount Saint Bernard Abbey, Leicestershire, and Brother Berry to somewhere in France.
But why were these three Oratorians given this savage punishment? Their supporters have been trying to find out, to no avail: all we have to go on are rumours about 'disputes over the beatification of Newman', which could mean anything. If these Birmingham Oratorians are innocent of wrongdoing, should they really be excluded from the greatest moment in the history of their Congregation?
I've just spoken to a senior (and non-partisan) lay Catholic who felt that this apparent injustice should be highlighted despite the dangers of rocking the boat so soon before the papal visit. So here is the open letter (Ed. published by CF NEWS on July 25th) . Time for some answers.
An Open Letter to Father Felix Selden CO, Delegate of the Apostolic See for the Confederation of the Oratory, from parishioners of the Birmingham Oratory and members of the National Association of Catholic families.
We are grateful to Father Felix Selden for having had the courtesy to reply to our letter of 1st July, in which we enquired about the return of Father Dermot Fenlon, Father Philip Cleevely and Brother Lewis Berry to the Birmingham Oratory. Unfortunately none of our questions were answered. His argument appears to be that as mere lay people, we have no right to know what is going on at the Birmingham Oratory. However we are parents, chosen by God to discharge the duty of protecting vulnerable young people in a society at war with our values. We have seen the inexplicable removal of two priests and a brother who have exerted themselves heroically in the defence of our Catholic families. Consequently, our family and others are now left much more vulnerable. I am afraid that is very much our business and indeed intimately affects our families: we have every right to a coherent explanation of what is going on, and an assurance that these priests and brother will be returned to their ministry with us forthwith.
Father Selden expresses concern that lay people are protesting the conduct of the Apostolic Visitation and suggests that this is creating scandal 'and might dangerously harm the Church and the Oratory of Birmingham'. It is very difficult to read this in any other way than as a veiled threat. Is there a threat here of direct action against the lay protestors, or indirect action against the two priests and brother concerned if the lay people cannot be silenced? We are bound to point out that the scandal was absolutely not of our own making. We will not easily forget the look of bewilderment on our children's faces when they heard from the pulpit the announcement of the expulsion of these three holy men with no explanation, and the difficult task we have (and continue to have) in trying to mitigate the enormous scandal that has been done to these little ones. There is a very ready remedy: bring back those of our good pastors who are innocent of any wrong doing (as we have been assured is the case with these three).
No threat will convince us as parents to remain silent: the threat from the immoral culture all around us, which in many sad cases has infiltrated the Catholic Church even to the extent of compromising some of her pastors, is far more deadly to us than anything that might be done to silence us. We love the Catholic Church very much but cannot elevate Church reputation and image above our children's moral safety. Our children's very souls are at stake and we will not be silence.
We ask once again: are these three holy men going to be returned to Cardinal Newman's Oratory where they belong or not? If they are to return, when will that be? [Telegraph]
In his SPUC Director's blog, John Smeaton picks up on Damian Thompso's Telegraph blog, noting that he had raised the question of the clerics' expulsion in a number posts 'as to whether their removal can be traced to the clear, coherent critique made by these Oratorians against the obvious and very serious dangers posed by the former government's sex and relationships education proposals contained within the Children, Schools and Families bill, a stance sharply at variance with Archbishop Nichols and the Catholic bishops' conference of England and Wales.
As I've said before: What on earth are Catholics and non-Catholics to make of the situation? On the one hand three staunch pro-life, pro-family advocates suffer apparently peremptory ecclesiastical injustice. On the other hand Archbishop Nichols, just a couple of months ago, was painting the previous government's intentions on sex and relationships education in an entirely positive light - when those intentions included continuing to enable the promotion and facilitation of abortion, contraception and homosexuality in schools, including Catholic schools. [SPUC] 1661.26
Wednesday, 28 July 2010
The Birmingham Three: A Second Open Letter
Catholic and loving it – James Preece on 28.7.2010
www.lovingit.co.uk
You can read this letter elsewhere such as CF News and on Damian Thompson's blog (more on that in a moment) but I think it's worth reproducing it here because it gives a good summary of where things stand...
An Open Letter to Father Felix Selden CO, Delegate of the Apostolic See for the Confederation of the Oratory, from parishioners of the Birmingham Oratory and members of the National Association of Catholic families.
We are grateful to Father Felix Selden for having had the courtesy to reply to our letter of 1st July, in which we enquired about the return of Father Dermot Fenlon, Father Philip Cleevely and Brother Lewis Berry to the Birmingham Oratory.
Unfortunately none of our questions were answered. His argument appears to be that as mere lay people, we have no right to know what is going on at the Birmingham Oratory. However we are parents, chosen by God to discharge the duty of protecting vulnerable young people in a society at war with our values. We have seen the inexplicable removal of two priests and a brother who have exerted themselves heroically in the defence of our Catholic families. Consequently, our family and others are now left much more vulnerable. I am afraid that is very much our business and indeed intimately affects our families: we have every right to a coherent explanation of what is going on, and an assurance that these priests and brother will be returned to their ministry with us forthwith.
Father Selden expresses concern that lay people are protesting the conduct of the Apostolic Visitation and suggests that this is creating scandal “and might dangerously harm the Church and the Oratory of Birmingham”. It is very difficult to read this in any other way than as a veiled threat. Is there a threat here of direct action against the lay protestors, or indirect action against the two priests and brother concerned if the lay people cannot be silenced? We are bound to point out that the scandal was absolutely not of our own making. We will not easily forget the look of bewilderment on our children’s faces when they heard from the pulpit the announcement of the expulsion of these three holy men with no explanation, and the difficult task we have (and continue to have) in trying to mitigate the enormous scandal that has been done to these little ones. There is a very ready remedy: bring back those of our good pastors who are innocent of any wrong doing (as we have been assured is the case with these three).
No threat will convince us as parents to remain silent: the threat from the immoral culture all around us, which in many sad cases has infiltrated the Catholic Church even to the extent of compromising some of her pastors, is far more deadly to us than anything that might be done to silence us. We love the Catholic Church very much but cannot elevate Church reputation and image above our children’s moral safety. Our children’s very souls are at stake and we will not be silence.
We ask once again: are these three holy men going to be returned to Cardinal Newman’s Oratory where they belong or not? If they are to return, when will that be?
It's not only parishioners of the Birmingham Oratory who are concerned. Damian Thompson has got himself involved as well, he writes...
If these Birmingham Oratorians are innocent of wrongdoing, should they really be excluded from the greatest moment in the history of their Congregation?
I’ve just spoken to a senior (and non-partisan) lay Catholic who felt that this apparent injustice should be highlighted despite the dangers of rocking the boat so soon before the papal visit.
Last (but by no means least) Splintered Sunrise has this to say...
..notwithstanding the approaching papal visit and the centrality of the Oratory to it, this boil has been festering for so long that it needs to be lanced. And so it does – one would hope that at some point even the most obscurantist of Catholic hierarchs would realise that “let’s keep this quiet lest we rock the boat” is not a winning strategy these days.
Anyway, some parishioners have got so frustrated at the Oratory’s stonewalling that they’ve issued an open letter on the subject. And this serves the worthwhile purpose of dragging the matter further into the spotlight, where the Oratorian bigwigs would rather it was not. At this point, they can either rescind the punishment or give a clear explanation of why the punishment was imposed in the first place, preferably both. What is not sustainable, especially with the Oratory in the spotlight coming up to B16′s visit, is to sing dumb and let the rumour mill go into overtime. As Max Clifford will tell you, if you don’t control the story then somebody else will.
My thanks to Damian and Splintered Sunrise for helping to keep these events in the public eye. The day the three drop in to obscurity is the day they can give up hope of ever returning home.
www.lovingit.co.uk
You can read this letter elsewhere such as CF News and on Damian Thompson's blog (more on that in a moment) but I think it's worth reproducing it here because it gives a good summary of where things stand...
An Open Letter to Father Felix Selden CO, Delegate of the Apostolic See for the Confederation of the Oratory, from parishioners of the Birmingham Oratory and members of the National Association of Catholic families.
We are grateful to Father Felix Selden for having had the courtesy to reply to our letter of 1st July, in which we enquired about the return of Father Dermot Fenlon, Father Philip Cleevely and Brother Lewis Berry to the Birmingham Oratory.
Unfortunately none of our questions were answered. His argument appears to be that as mere lay people, we have no right to know what is going on at the Birmingham Oratory. However we are parents, chosen by God to discharge the duty of protecting vulnerable young people in a society at war with our values. We have seen the inexplicable removal of two priests and a brother who have exerted themselves heroically in the defence of our Catholic families. Consequently, our family and others are now left much more vulnerable. I am afraid that is very much our business and indeed intimately affects our families: we have every right to a coherent explanation of what is going on, and an assurance that these priests and brother will be returned to their ministry with us forthwith.
Father Selden expresses concern that lay people are protesting the conduct of the Apostolic Visitation and suggests that this is creating scandal “and might dangerously harm the Church and the Oratory of Birmingham”. It is very difficult to read this in any other way than as a veiled threat. Is there a threat here of direct action against the lay protestors, or indirect action against the two priests and brother concerned if the lay people cannot be silenced? We are bound to point out that the scandal was absolutely not of our own making. We will not easily forget the look of bewilderment on our children’s faces when they heard from the pulpit the announcement of the expulsion of these three holy men with no explanation, and the difficult task we have (and continue to have) in trying to mitigate the enormous scandal that has been done to these little ones. There is a very ready remedy: bring back those of our good pastors who are innocent of any wrong doing (as we have been assured is the case with these three).
No threat will convince us as parents to remain silent: the threat from the immoral culture all around us, which in many sad cases has infiltrated the Catholic Church even to the extent of compromising some of her pastors, is far more deadly to us than anything that might be done to silence us. We love the Catholic Church very much but cannot elevate Church reputation and image above our children’s moral safety. Our children’s very souls are at stake and we will not be silence.
We ask once again: are these three holy men going to be returned to Cardinal Newman’s Oratory where they belong or not? If they are to return, when will that be?
It's not only parishioners of the Birmingham Oratory who are concerned. Damian Thompson has got himself involved as well, he writes...
If these Birmingham Oratorians are innocent of wrongdoing, should they really be excluded from the greatest moment in the history of their Congregation?
I’ve just spoken to a senior (and non-partisan) lay Catholic who felt that this apparent injustice should be highlighted despite the dangers of rocking the boat so soon before the papal visit.
Last (but by no means least) Splintered Sunrise has this to say...
..notwithstanding the approaching papal visit and the centrality of the Oratory to it, this boil has been festering for so long that it needs to be lanced. And so it does – one would hope that at some point even the most obscurantist of Catholic hierarchs would realise that “let’s keep this quiet lest we rock the boat” is not a winning strategy these days.
Anyway, some parishioners have got so frustrated at the Oratory’s stonewalling that they’ve issued an open letter on the subject. And this serves the worthwhile purpose of dragging the matter further into the spotlight, where the Oratorian bigwigs would rather it was not. At this point, they can either rescind the punishment or give a clear explanation of why the punishment was imposed in the first place, preferably both. What is not sustainable, especially with the Oratory in the spotlight coming up to B16′s visit, is to sing dumb and let the rumour mill go into overtime. As Max Clifford will tell you, if you don’t control the story then somebody else will.
My thanks to Damian and Splintered Sunrise for helping to keep these events in the public eye. The day the three drop in to obscurity is the day they can give up hope of ever returning home.
Tuesday, 27 July 2010
Telegraph's Damian Thompson questions "savage punishment" of Birmingham Oratorians
John Smeaton – 27.7.2010
www.spuc-director.blogspot.com
The Telegraph's Damian Thompson has reproduced an open letter to Father Felix Selden, the Vatican's apostolic visitor to the Oratory, written by parishioners of the Birmingham Oratory, England. This letter is a response to the unexplained removal of Fr Dermot Fenlon, Fr Philip Cleevely and Brother Lewis Berry from the Birmingham Oratory. They have been sent to separate monasteries for an undisclosed amount of time. Mr Thompson notes a real need for transparency since this matter has continued for several months now.
The letter is an impassioned plea, requesting to know when the two priests and religious brother will return, if at all. The important role these Oratorians have as shepherds is clearly perceived throughout, and is now accentuated by their sudden and unexplained removal. Mr Thompson poses the question:
"But why were these three Oratorians given this savage punishment? Their supporters have been trying to find out, to no avail: all we have to go on are rumours about “disputes over the beatification of Newman”, which could mean anything. If these Birmingham Oratorians are innocent of wrongdoing, should they really be excluded from the greatest moment in the history of their Congregation?"
I have raised the question in a number of posts (7 June 2010, 17 June 2010, 3 July 2010) as to whether their removal can be traced to the clear, coherent critique made by these Oratorians against the obvious and very serious dangers posed by the former government’s sex and relationships education proposals contained within the Children, Schools and Families bill, a stance sharply at variance with Archbishop Nichols and the Catholic bishops' conference of England and Wales.
As I've said before: What on earth are Catholics and non-Catholics to make of the situation? On the one hand three staunch pro-life, pro-family advocates suffer apparently peremptory ecclesiastical injustice. On the other hand Archbishop Nichols, just a couple of months ago, was painting the previous government's intentions on sex and relatonships education in an entirely postive light - when those intentions included continuing to enable the promotion and facilitation of abortion, contraception and homosexuality in schools, including Catholic schools.
www.spuc-director.blogspot.com
The Telegraph's Damian Thompson has reproduced an open letter to Father Felix Selden, the Vatican's apostolic visitor to the Oratory, written by parishioners of the Birmingham Oratory, England. This letter is a response to the unexplained removal of Fr Dermot Fenlon, Fr Philip Cleevely and Brother Lewis Berry from the Birmingham Oratory. They have been sent to separate monasteries for an undisclosed amount of time. Mr Thompson notes a real need for transparency since this matter has continued for several months now.
The letter is an impassioned plea, requesting to know when the two priests and religious brother will return, if at all. The important role these Oratorians have as shepherds is clearly perceived throughout, and is now accentuated by their sudden and unexplained removal. Mr Thompson poses the question:
"But why were these three Oratorians given this savage punishment? Their supporters have been trying to find out, to no avail: all we have to go on are rumours about “disputes over the beatification of Newman”, which could mean anything. If these Birmingham Oratorians are innocent of wrongdoing, should they really be excluded from the greatest moment in the history of their Congregation?"
I have raised the question in a number of posts (7 June 2010, 17 June 2010, 3 July 2010) as to whether their removal can be traced to the clear, coherent critique made by these Oratorians against the obvious and very serious dangers posed by the former government’s sex and relationships education proposals contained within the Children, Schools and Families bill, a stance sharply at variance with Archbishop Nichols and the Catholic bishops' conference of England and Wales.
As I've said before: What on earth are Catholics and non-Catholics to make of the situation? On the one hand three staunch pro-life, pro-family advocates suffer apparently peremptory ecclesiastical injustice. On the other hand Archbishop Nichols, just a couple of months ago, was painting the previous government's intentions on sex and relatonships education in an entirely postive light - when those intentions included continuing to enable the promotion and facilitation of abortion, contraception and homosexuality in schools, including Catholic schools.
Monday, 26 July 2010
One Wonders...
Catholic Family News - 25.7.2010
www.cfnews.org.uk
As activities begin to warm up in advance of Pope Benedict XVI's visit, the Birmingham Oratory is advertising for a sacristan. 'Please note that the post is only open to single males as it is necessary that the person live in to carry out the duties of the position'. As James Preece writes in his Catholic and Loving it! Blog, 'One wonders . . . if the Birmingham Oratory is so short staffed why not invite Fr Dermot Fenlon, Fr Philip Cleevely or Brother Lewis Berry to do it? It seems strange to me that they are advertising at all considering the fact that the Birmingham Oratory is currently under visitation with no end in sight for the ongoing exile of three holy men. Surely the most important thing is to unite the existing community rather than making moves to replace them?
An Open Letter
An Open Letter to Father Felix Selden CO, Delegate of the Apostolic See for the Confederation of the Oratory, from parishioners of the Birmingham Oratory and members of the National Association of Catholic families.
'We are grateful to Father Felix Selden for having had the courtesy to reply to our letter of 1st July, in which we enquired about the return of Father Dermot Fenlon, Father Philip Cleevely and Brother Lewis Berry to the Birmingham Oratory.
Unfortunately none of our questions were answered. His argument appears to be that as mere lay people, we have no right to know what is going on at the Birmingham Oratory. However we are parents, chosen by God to discharge the duty of protecting vulnerable young people in a society at war with our values. We have seen the inexplicable removal of two priests and a brother who have exerted themselves heroically in the defence of our Catholic families. Consequently, our family and others are now left much more vulnerable. I am afraid that is very much our business and indeed intimately affects our families: we have every right to a coherent explanation of what is going on, and an assurance that these priests and brother will be returned to their ministry with us forthwith.
'Father Selden expresses concern that lay people are protesting the conduct of the Apostolic Visitation and suggests that this is creating scandal 'and might dangerously harm the Church and the Oratory of Birmingham'. It is very difficult to read this in any other way than as a veiled threat. Is there a threat here of direct action against the lay protestors, or indirect action against the two priests and brother concerned if the lay people cannot be silenced? We are bound to point out that the scandal was absolutely not of our own making. We will not easily forget the look of bewilderment on our children's faces when they heard from the pulpit the announcement of the expulsion of these three holy men with no explanation, and the difficult task we have (and continue to have) in trying to mitigate the enormous scandal that has been done to these little ones. There is a very ready remedy: bring back those of our good pastors who are innocent of any wrong doing (as we have been assured is the case with these three).
'No threat will convince us as parents to remain silent: the threat from the immoral culture all around us, which in many sad cases has infiltrated the Catholic Church even to the extent of compromising some of her pastors, is far more deadly to us than anything that might be done to silence us. We love the Catholic Church very much but cannot elevate Church reputation and image above our children's moral safety. Our children's very souls are at stake and we will not be silence'.
'We ask once again: are these three holy men going to be returned to Cardinal Newman's Oratory where they belong or not? If they are to return, when will that be'?
www.cfnews.org.uk
As activities begin to warm up in advance of Pope Benedict XVI's visit, the Birmingham Oratory is advertising for a sacristan. 'Please note that the post is only open to single males as it is necessary that the person live in to carry out the duties of the position'. As James Preece writes in his Catholic and Loving it! Blog, 'One wonders . . . if the Birmingham Oratory is so short staffed why not invite Fr Dermot Fenlon, Fr Philip Cleevely or Brother Lewis Berry to do it? It seems strange to me that they are advertising at all considering the fact that the Birmingham Oratory is currently under visitation with no end in sight for the ongoing exile of three holy men. Surely the most important thing is to unite the existing community rather than making moves to replace them?
An Open Letter
An Open Letter to Father Felix Selden CO, Delegate of the Apostolic See for the Confederation of the Oratory, from parishioners of the Birmingham Oratory and members of the National Association of Catholic families.
'We are grateful to Father Felix Selden for having had the courtesy to reply to our letter of 1st July, in which we enquired about the return of Father Dermot Fenlon, Father Philip Cleevely and Brother Lewis Berry to the Birmingham Oratory.
Unfortunately none of our questions were answered. His argument appears to be that as mere lay people, we have no right to know what is going on at the Birmingham Oratory. However we are parents, chosen by God to discharge the duty of protecting vulnerable young people in a society at war with our values. We have seen the inexplicable removal of two priests and a brother who have exerted themselves heroically in the defence of our Catholic families. Consequently, our family and others are now left much more vulnerable. I am afraid that is very much our business and indeed intimately affects our families: we have every right to a coherent explanation of what is going on, and an assurance that these priests and brother will be returned to their ministry with us forthwith.
'Father Selden expresses concern that lay people are protesting the conduct of the Apostolic Visitation and suggests that this is creating scandal 'and might dangerously harm the Church and the Oratory of Birmingham'. It is very difficult to read this in any other way than as a veiled threat. Is there a threat here of direct action against the lay protestors, or indirect action against the two priests and brother concerned if the lay people cannot be silenced? We are bound to point out that the scandal was absolutely not of our own making. We will not easily forget the look of bewilderment on our children's faces when they heard from the pulpit the announcement of the expulsion of these three holy men with no explanation, and the difficult task we have (and continue to have) in trying to mitigate the enormous scandal that has been done to these little ones. There is a very ready remedy: bring back those of our good pastors who are innocent of any wrong doing (as we have been assured is the case with these three).
'No threat will convince us as parents to remain silent: the threat from the immoral culture all around us, which in many sad cases has infiltrated the Catholic Church even to the extent of compromising some of her pastors, is far more deadly to us than anything that might be done to silence us. We love the Catholic Church very much but cannot elevate Church reputation and image above our children's moral safety. Our children's very souls are at stake and we will not be silence'.
'We ask once again: are these three holy men going to be returned to Cardinal Newman's Oratory where they belong or not? If they are to return, when will that be'?
Thursday, 22 July 2010
Silence
Catholic Family News - 22.7.2010
www.cfnews.org.uk
Silence
A group of worried parishioners of the Birmingham Oratory and members of NACF write :
'Despite sending two letters to Father Ignatius Harrison, on the advice of the Provost of Birmingham Oratory, we have received no reply. Clearly it is felt that as mere parents and parishioners we are owed no explanation, almost as if it is none of our business. There seems to be no particular concern for us as parents, trying to bring up our children in a world ferociously hostile to our Catholic values, deprived of two priests and a Brother who were like manna in the desert in terms of their courageous support.
We simply cannot afford to lose their brave voices and their tireless pastoral support. Our family and many others are devastated at the breath-taking injustice of serving a sentence of indefinite banishment on three good and holy men who are guilty of no transgression, save perhaps that of speaking up a little too zealously in defence of life, of our families and of our parental rights. This scandal to our children is profound and will not be remedied until Father Dermot Fenlon, Father Philip Cleevely and Brother Lewis Berry are restored to our Oratory, Cardinal Newman's Oratory'.
www.cfnews.org.uk
Silence
A group of worried parishioners of the Birmingham Oratory and members of NACF write :
'Despite sending two letters to Father Ignatius Harrison, on the advice of the Provost of Birmingham Oratory, we have received no reply. Clearly it is felt that as mere parents and parishioners we are owed no explanation, almost as if it is none of our business. There seems to be no particular concern for us as parents, trying to bring up our children in a world ferociously hostile to our Catholic values, deprived of two priests and a Brother who were like manna in the desert in terms of their courageous support.
We simply cannot afford to lose their brave voices and their tireless pastoral support. Our family and many others are devastated at the breath-taking injustice of serving a sentence of indefinite banishment on three good and holy men who are guilty of no transgression, save perhaps that of speaking up a little too zealously in defence of life, of our families and of our parental rights. This scandal to our children is profound and will not be remedied until Father Dermot Fenlon, Father Philip Cleevely and Brother Lewis Berry are restored to our Oratory, Cardinal Newman's Oratory'.
Friday, 16 July 2010
Correspondence between Oratory parishioners and Fr Felix Selden
Catholic Family News - 15.7.2010
www.cfnews.org.uk
Agroup of parishioners at the Birmingham Oratory, members of the NACT, have written to Fr Felix Selden C.O. Delegate of the Apostolic See for the Confederation of the Oratory. This a copy of their letter, and his response.
Dear Father Seldon,
We are writing to you in the hope that you will answer our questions about the unexplained expulsion of Father Dermot Fenlon, Father Philip Cleevely and Brother Lewis Berry from the Birmingham Oratory, where we have been parishioners for over fifteen years. We have been assured by Father Richard Duffield, the current Provost, that these men are guilty of no wrong doing, a fact of which we were in any case completely convinced. He does not feel able to give us an explanation, however, and has directed us to you.
It is difficult to overestimate our sense of loss. As parents of six adopted children from a variety of traumatic backgrounds, we have valued Father Dermot's gifts in the Confessional that have done more than anything else to help them cope, with confidence in God's love and mercy. We have hugely appreciated the efforts of Father Philip to uphold with courage those aspects of the Church's moral teaching that many would despise, including, tragically, within the Church itself. Brother Lewis did wonderful work to defend the authentic teaching on conscience of Cardinal Newman, in defence against those elements that would pervert it. On the feast of SS. Peter and Paul, we watched the gallant but elderly Father Winterton stagger about the sanctuary on a stick while the Confessionals remained empty, the names above them all absent. In God's name, why?
Please do not assume that because relatively few have spoken out openly that there is not enormous upset and concern among Birmingham Oratory parishioners and indeed many in the wider church in England. There is considerable unrest and indeed a rising tide of anger which is becoming worse by the day. The vague references to internal disagreements simply do not add up, given the severity of the penalty these men are undergoing.
Please will you tell us whether these men are going to return to the Birmingham Oratory or not? If they are to return, when will that be?
Yours sincerely,
Dear . . . .
Thank you for your letter in which you express your great esteem for members of the Birmingham Oratory which is currently under apostolic visitation. As much as I can understand your concern about missing Oratorians, who assisted so laudably to your family, I ask you to acknowledge the nature of a canonical visitation reserved to the Holy See and conducted in conformity to the Law of the Church and the Constitutions of the Oratory. I hope that you will understand that I cannot disclose any information to externals about persons who are concerned. Several speculations recently spread in the English public about measurements of this visitation have not originated from me and I will presently neither confirm nor repudiate them. Please assure your friends, who are upset, that the scope of this as each canonical visitation is the common good of the Church and the welfare of the concerned community and all her members, who are given sufficient opportunity to bring forward their arguments and always maintain their right to defend their interests according to the norms of the Church. It is not helpful when Catholics without intimate knowledge of the matter spread speculations, or protest against the apostolic visitation in the public sphere, as they create scandal and might dangerously harm the Church and the Oratory of Birmingham.
As far as I know, without exception all Fathers of the community uphold with fervour the entire Magisterium of the Church and the Holy Father as they all do their best to spread the authentic teaching of Cardinal Newman.
Let me end this letter in personally expressing to you my great admiration for your Christian testimony in having adopted six children. This is wonderful, and I am praying for you that you always have the strength and the help of divine grace to give them a good Catholic home and can serve them to become happy and devout Christians!
With all best wishes yours in Christ
Fr Felix Selden CO
Delegrate of the Apostolic See for the Confederation of the Oratory
Thursday, 15 July 2010
Empty Confessionals
Catholic Family News - 1.7.2010
www.cfnews.org.uk
Parishioners and members of the NACF email : For many years we have been used to having the Sacrament of Confession available during all Masses at the Birmingham Oratory. There were normally two priests available at any one time, giving the faithful a choice of Confessor which is of-course the ideal. This special charism which Saint Philip himself founded has been enormously helpful to us as a large family with many children and many special needs. Alas, on the Feast of SS. Peter and Paul two of the three priests remaining (of the original eight) were saying Mass, one leaning on his walking stick and the other assisting with the distribution of Holy Communion. We walked past the row of empty Confessionals with their dear names displayed on them and prayed for their absent incumbents. It is not easy for us to get to other churches with their typical half hour window on a busy Saturday morning for Confession. My children are not receiving the Sacrament as often as they were or would like to and it is a profound deprivation. This is what the Pope will be coming to in September if our priests are not restored to us.
www.cfnews.org.uk
Parishioners and members of the NACF email : For many years we have been used to having the Sacrament of Confession available during all Masses at the Birmingham Oratory. There were normally two priests available at any one time, giving the faithful a choice of Confessor which is of-course the ideal. This special charism which Saint Philip himself founded has been enormously helpful to us as a large family with many children and many special needs. Alas, on the Feast of SS. Peter and Paul two of the three priests remaining (of the original eight) were saying Mass, one leaning on his walking stick and the other assisting with the distribution of Holy Communion. We walked past the row of empty Confessionals with their dear names displayed on them and prayed for their absent incumbents. It is not easy for us to get to other churches with their typical half hour window on a busy Saturday morning for Confession. My children are not receiving the Sacrament as often as they were or would like to and it is a profound deprivation. This is what the Pope will be coming to in September if our priests are not restored to us.
The Fort is Betrayed (St John Fisher)
Catholic Family News - 24.6.2010
www.cfnews.org.uk
Parishioners of the Birmingham Oratory and members of NACF email : 'In our anxiety over the fate of Father Dermot Fenlon, Father Philip Cleevely and Brother Lewis Berry, who have disappeared from our parish of the Birmingham Oratory, we wrote to the Provost, Father Richard Duffield. He was kind enough to reply, but was unable to give us more than the equivocal answer that "I assume that the three brethren involved will be returning to the Oratory". However, he emphasised that he was not "free to speak about the circumstances that have brought this situation about" without the authority of the Apostolic visitor, Father Felix Selden from Vienna and his delegate, Father Ignatius Harrison of the London Oratory. He assured us unequivocally that he would pass on our letter to those two priests and indeed invited us to contact them directly. We have duly written to Father Ignatius Harrison, twice, and have been completely ignored. We have asked just three simple questions:
* Are Father Dermot Fenlon, Father Philip Cleevely and Brother Lewis Berry going to return to the Birmingham Oratory, or not?
* If the answer to the above question is "yes", when are they going to return?
* Is there any truth in the rumour currently circulating amongst journalists that these three men are shortly to be sent abroad?
We have refrained from putting him on the spot and asking him why these three good and holy men have been treated so appallingly.
We are parishioners and parents who are faced with trying to discern how to talk to our children, who are bewildered and downcast by the loss of their beloved priests, without scandalising them. As parents, we simply cannot understand how Father Harrison's silence can possibly be justified. Our children are witnessing what we consider to be an act of great cruelty against holy priests that we their parents cannot explain to them because no-one will answer us. What ordinary father would so abruptly remove beloved and important people from his children's lives without a word of explanation?
In this week in which we venerate the great Bishop John Fisher, who famously said, "The fort is betrayed even of them that should have defended it", may we hope that just one priest will speak out bravely in the defence of these wronged men, who have done nothing but defend the Church.?
We shall be continuing to pose our legitimate questions until they are answered.
www.cfnews.org.uk
Parishioners of the Birmingham Oratory and members of NACF email : 'In our anxiety over the fate of Father Dermot Fenlon, Father Philip Cleevely and Brother Lewis Berry, who have disappeared from our parish of the Birmingham Oratory, we wrote to the Provost, Father Richard Duffield. He was kind enough to reply, but was unable to give us more than the equivocal answer that "I assume that the three brethren involved will be returning to the Oratory". However, he emphasised that he was not "free to speak about the circumstances that have brought this situation about" without the authority of the Apostolic visitor, Father Felix Selden from Vienna and his delegate, Father Ignatius Harrison of the London Oratory. He assured us unequivocally that he would pass on our letter to those two priests and indeed invited us to contact them directly. We have duly written to Father Ignatius Harrison, twice, and have been completely ignored. We have asked just three simple questions:
* Are Father Dermot Fenlon, Father Philip Cleevely and Brother Lewis Berry going to return to the Birmingham Oratory, or not?
* If the answer to the above question is "yes", when are they going to return?
* Is there any truth in the rumour currently circulating amongst journalists that these three men are shortly to be sent abroad?
We have refrained from putting him on the spot and asking him why these three good and holy men have been treated so appallingly.
We are parishioners and parents who are faced with trying to discern how to talk to our children, who are bewildered and downcast by the loss of their beloved priests, without scandalising them. As parents, we simply cannot understand how Father Harrison's silence can possibly be justified. Our children are witnessing what we consider to be an act of great cruelty against holy priests that we their parents cannot explain to them because no-one will answer us. What ordinary father would so abruptly remove beloved and important people from his children's lives without a word of explanation?
In this week in which we venerate the great Bishop John Fisher, who famously said, "The fort is betrayed even of them that should have defended it", may we hope that just one priest will speak out bravely in the defence of these wronged men, who have done nothing but defend the Church.?
We shall be continuing to pose our legitimate questions until they are answered.
A Terrible Atrocity
Catholic Family News 24.6.2010
www.cfnews.org.uk
Dawn Stefanowicz, author and winner of the 2009 Women of Faith Award, emails from Canada : ''This is a terrible atrocity. These godly men are being punished for holding to moral law? What message is this sending to the other priests and leadership in the Church? That you must be culturally relevant and alter your faith and morals to satisfy a tiny minority who have the power and free reign to dictate to the Church what is right and wrong? However, I think the three men who have been kicked out knew far more about the inner goings on and looked outside for assistance... The whole process stinks of injustice.
I am sure it isn't the first time this has happened since some US seminary students have been discharged from their studies for being too conservative. Did not the Holy Father state in his homily at the ordination mass on 20th June: 'The priesthood must never represent a way to achieve security in life or to attain social position. Anyone who aspires to the priesthood in order to increase his personal prestige and power has radically misunderstood the significance of this ministry.
Anyone whose main goal is to realise an ambition of his own, to achieve success, will always be a slave to himself and to public opinion. In order to be noticed he will have to adulate; he must say what people want to hear, he must adapt to changing fashions and opinions. In this way, he will deprive himself of the vital relationship with truth, reducing himself to condemning tomorrow what he praises today.
'A man who organises his life like this', the Holy Father added, 'a priest who sees his ministry in these terms, does not truly love God and neighbour, he loves only himself and, paradoxically, ends up by losing himself.'
In what way then are these priests and soon to be ordained Brother examples of the kind of anti-model of priestly life and ministry the pope describes? |If they are not and known publicly to be so then they must be returned to their home and spiritual community for the good of their souls and that of those to whom they are called by God to minister' [ dawnstefano@sympatico.ca ]
www.cfnews.org.uk
Dawn Stefanowicz, author and winner of the 2009 Women of Faith Award, emails from Canada : ''This is a terrible atrocity. These godly men are being punished for holding to moral law? What message is this sending to the other priests and leadership in the Church? That you must be culturally relevant and alter your faith and morals to satisfy a tiny minority who have the power and free reign to dictate to the Church what is right and wrong? However, I think the three men who have been kicked out knew far more about the inner goings on and looked outside for assistance... The whole process stinks of injustice.
I am sure it isn't the first time this has happened since some US seminary students have been discharged from their studies for being too conservative. Did not the Holy Father state in his homily at the ordination mass on 20th June: 'The priesthood must never represent a way to achieve security in life or to attain social position. Anyone who aspires to the priesthood in order to increase his personal prestige and power has radically misunderstood the significance of this ministry.
Anyone whose main goal is to realise an ambition of his own, to achieve success, will always be a slave to himself and to public opinion. In order to be noticed he will have to adulate; he must say what people want to hear, he must adapt to changing fashions and opinions. In this way, he will deprive himself of the vital relationship with truth, reducing himself to condemning tomorrow what he praises today.
'A man who organises his life like this', the Holy Father added, 'a priest who sees his ministry in these terms, does not truly love God and neighbour, he loves only himself and, paradoxically, ends up by losing himself.'
In what way then are these priests and soon to be ordained Brother examples of the kind of anti-model of priestly life and ministry the pope describes? |If they are not and known publicly to be so then they must be returned to their home and spiritual community for the good of their souls and that of those to whom they are called by God to minister' [ dawnstefano@sympatico.ca ]
Novena for the Oratory 3
Catholic Family News - 20.6.2010
www.cfnews.org.uk
Sara Ward emails : A couple of years ago, my family and I spent a day in Lisieux with a dear friend, Fr Dermot Fenlon, who has a great devotion to the Little Flower.
Please join me in asking St. Therese to intercede on behalf of Fr Dermot and his Oratorian brothers, for their immediate reinstatement to the Birmingham Oratory.
Novena of the Twenty-four Glory Be to the Fathers
The Twenty-four "Glory be to the Father's" novena can be said at any time. However, the ninth to the seventeenth of the month is particularly recommended, for on those days the petitioner joins in prayer with all those making the novena.
The "Glory be to the Father" praising the Holy Trinity is said twenty-four times each of the nine days, in thanksgiving for all the blessings and favors given to Saint Theresa of the Child Jesus during the twenty-four years of her life. In addition, this, or a similar prayer may be used:
"Holy Trinity, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, I thank Thee for all the blessings and favors Thou hast showered upon the soul of Thy servant Theresa of the Child Jesus, during the twenty-four years she spent here on earth, and in consideration of the merits of this Thy most beloved Saint, I beseech Thee to grant me this favor, if it is in accordance with Thy most Holy Will and is not an obstacle to my salvation."
After this Prayer, follow the twenty-four "Glory Be's," between each of which may be included this short prayer:
"Saint Theresa of the Child Jesus, pray for us."
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost.
As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
Origin of the Novena
Father Putigan, a Jesuit, began the Novena to Saint Theresa of the Child Jesus on December 3, 1925, asking the glorious Saint for one great favor. For nine days he recited the "Glory be to the Father" twenty-four times thanking the Holy Trinity for the favors and Graces showered on Saint Theresa during the twenty-four years of her life on earth. The priest asked Saint Theresa, that as a sign that his novena was heard he would receive from someone a freshly plucked rose. On the third day of the novena, an unknown person sought out Father Putigan and presented him with a beautiful rose.
Father Putigan began the second novena on December 24 of the same year, and as a sign, asked for a white rose. On the fourth day of this novena one of the Sister-nurses brought him a white rose saying:
"Saint Theresa sent you this."
Amazed, the priest asked: "Where did you get this?"
"I was in the chapel," said the Sister, "and as I was leaving I passed the altar above which hangs the beautiful picture of Saint Theresa. This rose fell at my feet. I wanted to put it back into the bouquet, but a thought came to me that I should bring it to you."
Father Putigan received the favors he had petitioned of the Little Flower of Jesus, and promised to spread the novena to increase devotion to, and bring her more honor.
In this fashion, from the ninth to the seventeenth of each month, those who want to participate in the Twenty-four "Glory be to the Father's" novena, should add to those of their own, the intentions of all who are at that time making the novena, thus forming one great prayer in common.
www.cfnews.org.uk
Sara Ward emails : A couple of years ago, my family and I spent a day in Lisieux with a dear friend, Fr Dermot Fenlon, who has a great devotion to the Little Flower.
Please join me in asking St. Therese to intercede on behalf of Fr Dermot and his Oratorian brothers, for their immediate reinstatement to the Birmingham Oratory.
Novena of the Twenty-four Glory Be to the Fathers
The Twenty-four "Glory be to the Father's" novena can be said at any time. However, the ninth to the seventeenth of the month is particularly recommended, for on those days the petitioner joins in prayer with all those making the novena.
The "Glory be to the Father" praising the Holy Trinity is said twenty-four times each of the nine days, in thanksgiving for all the blessings and favors given to Saint Theresa of the Child Jesus during the twenty-four years of her life. In addition, this, or a similar prayer may be used:
"Holy Trinity, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, I thank Thee for all the blessings and favors Thou hast showered upon the soul of Thy servant Theresa of the Child Jesus, during the twenty-four years she spent here on earth, and in consideration of the merits of this Thy most beloved Saint, I beseech Thee to grant me this favor, if it is in accordance with Thy most Holy Will and is not an obstacle to my salvation."
After this Prayer, follow the twenty-four "Glory Be's," between each of which may be included this short prayer:
"Saint Theresa of the Child Jesus, pray for us."
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost.
As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
Origin of the Novena
Father Putigan, a Jesuit, began the Novena to Saint Theresa of the Child Jesus on December 3, 1925, asking the glorious Saint for one great favor. For nine days he recited the "Glory be to the Father" twenty-four times thanking the Holy Trinity for the favors and Graces showered on Saint Theresa during the twenty-four years of her life on earth. The priest asked Saint Theresa, that as a sign that his novena was heard he would receive from someone a freshly plucked rose. On the third day of the novena, an unknown person sought out Father Putigan and presented him with a beautiful rose.
Father Putigan began the second novena on December 24 of the same year, and as a sign, asked for a white rose. On the fourth day of this novena one of the Sister-nurses brought him a white rose saying:
"Saint Theresa sent you this."
Amazed, the priest asked: "Where did you get this?"
"I was in the chapel," said the Sister, "and as I was leaving I passed the altar above which hangs the beautiful picture of Saint Theresa. This rose fell at my feet. I wanted to put it back into the bouquet, but a thought came to me that I should bring it to you."
Father Putigan received the favors he had petitioned of the Little Flower of Jesus, and promised to spread the novena to increase devotion to, and bring her more honor.
In this fashion, from the ninth to the seventeenth of each month, those who want to participate in the Twenty-four "Glory be to the Father's" novena, should add to those of their own, the intentions of all who are at that time making the novena, thus forming one great prayer in common.
Families stone-walled
Catholic Family News - 20.6.2010
Parishioners of the Birmingham Oratory and members email :
'Despite sending two letters to Father Ignatius Harrison, on the advice of the Provost of Birmingham Oratory, we have received no reply. Clearly it is felt that as mere parents and parishioners we are owed no explanation, almost as if it is none of our business. There seems to be no particular concern for us as parents, trying to bring up our children in a world ferociously hostile to our Catholic values, deprived of two priests and a Brother who were like manna in the desert in terms of their courageous support. We simply cannot afford to lose their brave voices and their tireless pastoral support. Our family and many others are devastated at the breath-taking injustice of serving a sentence of indefinite banishment on three good and holy men who are guilty of no transgression, save perhaps that of speaking up a little too zealously in defence of life, of our families and of our parental rights.
This scandal to our children is profound and will not be remedied until Father Dermot Fenlon, Father Philip Cleevely and Brother Lewis Berry are restored to our Oratory, Cardinal Newman's Oratory'.
A blogger's comment
In a comment published on the Reluctant Sinner blogspot 'Petrus' writes : 'Whether or not these TWO priests and ONE brother are 'guilty' of what you call 'conservative Catholic values' [whatever that actually means] given their evident and publicly appreciated and acknowledged fidelity to the Catechism on faith and morals, the fact remains the laity are left in the dark as to whether or not their rights in Canon law have been duly respected. Simple things such as - the right to have been notified in writing first as to the 'order' to go on indefinite 'retreat'. The right to have a witness present when the 'order' was given. That according to expert canonists, nothing in such meetings is considered legally confidential. And here's an interesting statement: 'Do not allow yourself to be intimidated by bishops, provincials or diocesan officials. They have as much power over you as you give them.' Canonical Justice Organization USA'. 1650.21
Parishioners of the Birmingham Oratory and members email :
'Despite sending two letters to Father Ignatius Harrison, on the advice of the Provost of Birmingham Oratory, we have received no reply. Clearly it is felt that as mere parents and parishioners we are owed no explanation, almost as if it is none of our business. There seems to be no particular concern for us as parents, trying to bring up our children in a world ferociously hostile to our Catholic values, deprived of two priests and a Brother who were like manna in the desert in terms of their courageous support. We simply cannot afford to lose their brave voices and their tireless pastoral support. Our family and many others are devastated at the breath-taking injustice of serving a sentence of indefinite banishment on three good and holy men who are guilty of no transgression, save perhaps that of speaking up a little too zealously in defence of life, of our families and of our parental rights.
This scandal to our children is profound and will not be remedied until Father Dermot Fenlon, Father Philip Cleevely and Brother Lewis Berry are restored to our Oratory, Cardinal Newman's Oratory'.
A blogger's comment
In a comment published on the Reluctant Sinner blogspot 'Petrus' writes : 'Whether or not these TWO priests and ONE brother are 'guilty' of what you call 'conservative Catholic values' [whatever that actually means] given their evident and publicly appreciated and acknowledged fidelity to the Catechism on faith and morals, the fact remains the laity are left in the dark as to whether or not their rights in Canon law have been duly respected. Simple things such as - the right to have been notified in writing first as to the 'order' to go on indefinite 'retreat'. The right to have a witness present when the 'order' was given. That according to expert canonists, nothing in such meetings is considered legally confidential. And here's an interesting statement: 'Do not allow yourself to be intimidated by bishops, provincials or diocesan officials. They have as much power over you as you give them.' Canonical Justice Organization USA'. 1650.21
Birmingham Oratory : 'Extraordinary rendition'
Catholic Family News - 10.6.2010
www.cfnews.org.uk
Members of the NACF and parishioners of the Birmingham Oratory email : 'We have written to Father Duffield, Provost of the Birmingham Oratory, to ask about the mysterious disappearance of Father Philip Cleevely, Father Dermot Fenlon and Brother Lewis Berry. Knowing them to be good and holy men, we could not understand why they had been sent to different monasteries, hundreds of miles apart. Father Duffield, a kind and orthodox priest, has assured us that there is no question of any insinuation of moral turpitude and we are grateful for this assurance. He then told us that he is not free to speak about the circumstances that have brought about this situation and advised us to write to his superior, which we have done.
The questions that we are asking specifically are as follows. Are Father Dermot Fenlon, Father Philip Cleevely and Brother Lewis Berry returning to the Birmingham Oratory, or not? If the answer to this question is yes, then when precisely are they going to return? How long is their penitential sentence to be?
A further question to which we require a particularly speedy response is this: is there any truth in the rumours circulating in London that these three men are shortly to be removed abroad, from where they will be unlikely ever to return to this country? It beggars belief that an ecclesiastical equivalent of 'extraordinary rendition' should be thought appropriate for three orthodox and holy pastors who have done nothing wrong. What is going on? As parishioners who have lost three of their pastors, we feel that we have a moral entitlement to an explanation.
www.cfnews.org.uk
Members of the NACF and parishioners of the Birmingham Oratory email : 'We have written to Father Duffield, Provost of the Birmingham Oratory, to ask about the mysterious disappearance of Father Philip Cleevely, Father Dermot Fenlon and Brother Lewis Berry. Knowing them to be good and holy men, we could not understand why they had been sent to different monasteries, hundreds of miles apart. Father Duffield, a kind and orthodox priest, has assured us that there is no question of any insinuation of moral turpitude and we are grateful for this assurance. He then told us that he is not free to speak about the circumstances that have brought about this situation and advised us to write to his superior, which we have done.
The questions that we are asking specifically are as follows. Are Father Dermot Fenlon, Father Philip Cleevely and Brother Lewis Berry returning to the Birmingham Oratory, or not? If the answer to this question is yes, then when precisely are they going to return? How long is their penitential sentence to be?
A further question to which we require a particularly speedy response is this: is there any truth in the rumours circulating in London that these three men are shortly to be removed abroad, from where they will be unlikely ever to return to this country? It beggars belief that an ecclesiastical equivalent of 'extraordinary rendition' should be thought appropriate for three orthodox and holy pastors who have done nothing wrong. What is going on? As parishioners who have lost three of their pastors, we feel that we have a moral entitlement to an explanation.
Prisoners of Conscience?
Catholic Family News - 4.6.2010
www.cfnews.org.uk
Members of the NACF and parishioners of the Birmingham Oratory email :
'Parishioners at the Birmingham Oratory remain completely in the dark as regards the loss of their priests, Father Dermot Fenlon and Father Philip Cleevely, and of Brother Lewis Berry. No reason has been given as to why they have been ordered to three separate monasteries hundreds of miles apart, how long they are to remain there or when, if at all, we can expect them back. They are sorely missed, and there is a great deal of confusion and sadness in the parish as a result, which of-course extends far beyond geographical parish boundaries. The beautiful and reverent liturgies in both Tridentine and Novus Ordo forms, sound teaching and access to the Sacrament of Confession several times each day draw many from all parts of the city and beyond.
Could this in fact be the problem? Certainly the Birmingham Oratory was a rare bastion of defence of Catholic doctrine in such controversial areas as pro-life issues, Government proposals for values-free sex education in Catholic schools endorsed by the Catholic Education Service, the Catholic understanding of the problem of homosexuality and so on. Are these good men in fact the prisoners of conscience of the Catholic church in the British Isles? Certainly the idea is abhorrent to their parishioners that they could possibly have deserved their banishment through any wrong action of theirs.
We urgently require this injustice to be rectified and our priests restored to us. We deserve an honest and clear answer to our question: when are they coming back?
www.cfnews.org.uk
Members of the NACF and parishioners of the Birmingham Oratory email :
'Parishioners at the Birmingham Oratory remain completely in the dark as regards the loss of their priests, Father Dermot Fenlon and Father Philip Cleevely, and of Brother Lewis Berry. No reason has been given as to why they have been ordered to three separate monasteries hundreds of miles apart, how long they are to remain there or when, if at all, we can expect them back. They are sorely missed, and there is a great deal of confusion and sadness in the parish as a result, which of-course extends far beyond geographical parish boundaries. The beautiful and reverent liturgies in both Tridentine and Novus Ordo forms, sound teaching and access to the Sacrament of Confession several times each day draw many from all parts of the city and beyond.
Could this in fact be the problem? Certainly the Birmingham Oratory was a rare bastion of defence of Catholic doctrine in such controversial areas as pro-life issues, Government proposals for values-free sex education in Catholic schools endorsed by the Catholic Education Service, the Catholic understanding of the problem of homosexuality and so on. Are these good men in fact the prisoners of conscience of the Catholic church in the British Isles? Certainly the idea is abhorrent to their parishioners that they could possibly have deserved their banishment through any wrong action of theirs.
We urgently require this injustice to be rectified and our priests restored to us. We deserve an honest and clear answer to our question: when are they coming back?
Concerns at the Birmingham Oratory
Catholic Family News 27.5.2010
www.cfnews.org.uk
The following Open Letter has been published today by members of the NACF who are parishioners of the Birmingham Oratory.
'We were devastated to learn from an article in The Times newspaper on Friday, 21st May, 2010 (see below) that two of our priests and a brother from the Birmingham Oratory have been “ordered to go on retreat – to monasteries hundreds of miles apart – and pray” and that this would be for an indefinite period of time. Aware that Father Dermot Fenlon, Father Philip Cleevely and Brother Lewis Berry have led exemplary lives and offered wonderful pastoral care to the parishioners of the Oratory we were puzzled, to say the least, that this severe penalty, normally reserved for offences of grave moral turpitude, should have been meted out to these good and holy men.
We cannot imagine that these men could have caused offence to anyone other than perhaps to those who find firm, Magisterial teaching on marriage and family life, homosexuality and bioethics to be offensive.
Confident that we would be enlightened as to what would be done to right this injustice we attended High Mass on the following Sunday and were duly told that an announcement would be made from the pulpit by the Provost, Father Richard Duffield. Astonishingly, he offered no explanation whatsoever for the expulsion of Father Dermot Fenlon, Father Philip Cleevely or Brother Lewis Berry, but merely reiterated the facts as stated in the Times article, that these two priests and brother had been ordered to separate monasteries for an indefinite period of time. It was distressing to realise that the gossip and innuendo inevitably attending such a penalty, generally associated with grave immorality, was effectively to remain entirely unchallenged from the pulpit.
All of this is a matter of public interest and concern, as well as a matter of grave injustice to the holy Oratorians concerned. We do not have enough good and holy priests to be able to tolerate the inexplicable loss of two such exemplary ones, and the promise of a third in Brother Berry.
Expect a CF NEWS update on this story.
www.cfnews.org.uk
The following Open Letter has been published today by members of the NACF who are parishioners of the Birmingham Oratory.
'We were devastated to learn from an article in The Times newspaper on Friday, 21st May, 2010 (see below) that two of our priests and a brother from the Birmingham Oratory have been “ordered to go on retreat – to monasteries hundreds of miles apart – and pray” and that this would be for an indefinite period of time. Aware that Father Dermot Fenlon, Father Philip Cleevely and Brother Lewis Berry have led exemplary lives and offered wonderful pastoral care to the parishioners of the Oratory we were puzzled, to say the least, that this severe penalty, normally reserved for offences of grave moral turpitude, should have been meted out to these good and holy men.
We cannot imagine that these men could have caused offence to anyone other than perhaps to those who find firm, Magisterial teaching on marriage and family life, homosexuality and bioethics to be offensive.
Confident that we would be enlightened as to what would be done to right this injustice we attended High Mass on the following Sunday and were duly told that an announcement would be made from the pulpit by the Provost, Father Richard Duffield. Astonishingly, he offered no explanation whatsoever for the expulsion of Father Dermot Fenlon, Father Philip Cleevely or Brother Lewis Berry, but merely reiterated the facts as stated in the Times article, that these two priests and brother had been ordered to separate monasteries for an indefinite period of time. It was distressing to realise that the gossip and innuendo inevitably attending such a penalty, generally associated with grave immorality, was effectively to remain entirely unchallenged from the pulpit.
All of this is a matter of public interest and concern, as well as a matter of grave injustice to the holy Oratorians concerned. We do not have enough good and holy priests to be able to tolerate the inexplicable loss of two such exemplary ones, and the promise of a third in Brother Berry.
Expect a CF NEWS update on this story.
Fr Richard Duffield: Two Weeks of Silence
Catholic and Loving It - James Preece on 15.7.2010
www.lovingit.co.uk
I'm not entirely sure what Fr Duffield thought I would do when he refused to reply to my emails for two weeks. Maybe he hoped I would just go away or something.
It's strange because when I appeared on the local BBC radio station he managed to phone me the same day so let's not have any of that "maybe he's just busy" nonsense.
When I appeared on the radio Jack Valero responded live on air and said several things that I now know are not true. Maybe Jack was flat out lying but lets be nice and assume he was just badly informed.
You might have thought Fr Richard Duffield the provost of Birmingham Oratory would be keen to make sure that any falsehoods broadcast to thousands of people across the West Midlands would be put right as soon as possible.
Fr Duffield was a bit ambiguous on the phone and then asked that our conversation be kept off the record. Okay. But what Valero said on the radio wasn't off the record and needed clearing up.
So I emailed Fr Duffield...
1st July 2010
On the record and in writing, can you confirm for me which of the following phrases that Jack Valero said on the radio are true:
• That the three "asked to go away and pray for a while"
• "they are away now, they will come back"
• "We are working together, so there's no falling out and there's no casting away it's just a time away to cool down"
• "they can come back soon and we can continue as normal"
• "there's no indication they've done something wrong, they've been punished or anything. these words are wrong they give the wrong impression"
Five days later I sent an email asking if he might be responding to me soon. After I had been waiting a week I sent my question again. I've now asked him three times.
So why the hesitation to respond?
Because none of those phrases from Valero are true. The three didn't ask to go away they were sent. There is no certainty they will come back and any talk of them coming back "soon" is outrageous when the Oratory refuse to confirm whether they will be coming back at all.
I'm disappointed because I quite like Fr Duffield. He seems like a nice man who finds himself in a difficult situation, but apparently he's also the sort of man who would rather let falsehoods stand than admit that the Oratory spokesman made a mistake.
When I have said that the three are outspoken but those who remain are a bit more inclined towards silence this is exactly the sort of thing I am talking about.
Three good men are in exile and Fr Richard Duffield is burying his head in the sand.
Saturday, 10 July 2010
"The Oratorillennium Bug"
Catholic and loving it - James Preece on 7.7.2010
www.lovingit.co.uk
You might have thought the recent events at the Birmingham Oratory were bad enough but it turns out the situation is about to get a lot worse.
Fr Felix Selden and Fr Ignatius Harrison (the visitors to the Birmingham Oratory responsible for the eviction of the Birmingham Three) are managing their visitation using an outdated version of Microsoft Visitation Manager 2006.
This software has a bug similar to the well known Millennium Bug - at the beginning of the year 2000 there was much concern that computers which stored the year as the last two digits (97,98,99...) would think the year was 1900.
The programmers never thought such a high number of Oratorians would ever be evicted so they stored the number of extraneous Oratorians as a single digit (0,1,2...) If the visitors continue to evict Oratorians at the current rate it is quite likely that the number of evicted Oratorians will reach 10 before the Papal visit.
At this point the software will crash forcing Fr Ignatious Harrison to start his game of Solitaire over from the beginning. What else is he doing? He certainly isn't spending his time replying to letters.
Meanwhile the cost of the Papal Visit is set to increase further as Eccleston Square announce that extra cash is needed for the purchase of new calculators.
The old calculators which were used during the organisation of the visit of Pope John Paul II in 1982 were found to be unsuitable after it was discovered they were unable to display amounts greater than £99,999,999 meaning that the Bishops Conference actually had to borrow a calculator in order to calculate how much buying the calculators would cause the visit to cost.
A spokesman for the Bishop's conference explained that it was not clear when the borrowed calculator would be returned "We are not sure if it's going to be a week, a month or two months" he said. Adding that there was definitely no falling out and the calculator would be back "soon".
www.lovingit.co.uk
You might have thought the recent events at the Birmingham Oratory were bad enough but it turns out the situation is about to get a lot worse.
Fr Felix Selden and Fr Ignatius Harrison (the visitors to the Birmingham Oratory responsible for the eviction of the Birmingham Three) are managing their visitation using an outdated version of Microsoft Visitation Manager 2006.
This software has a bug similar to the well known Millennium Bug - at the beginning of the year 2000 there was much concern that computers which stored the year as the last two digits (97,98,99...) would think the year was 1900.
The programmers never thought such a high number of Oratorians would ever be evicted so they stored the number of extraneous Oratorians as a single digit (0,1,2...) If the visitors continue to evict Oratorians at the current rate it is quite likely that the number of evicted Oratorians will reach 10 before the Papal visit.
At this point the software will crash forcing Fr Ignatious Harrison to start his game of Solitaire over from the beginning. What else is he doing? He certainly isn't spending his time replying to letters.
Meanwhile the cost of the Papal Visit is set to increase further as Eccleston Square announce that extra cash is needed for the purchase of new calculators.
The old calculators which were used during the organisation of the visit of Pope John Paul II in 1982 were found to be unsuitable after it was discovered they were unable to display amounts greater than £99,999,999 meaning that the Bishops Conference actually had to borrow a calculator in order to calculate how much buying the calculators would cause the visit to cost.
A spokesman for the Bishop's conference explained that it was not clear when the borrowed calculator would be returned "We are not sure if it's going to be a week, a month or two months" he said. Adding that there was definitely no falling out and the calculator would be back "soon".
"Catholic Herald links Pope's visit to Birmingham Oratory to indefinate expulsion of three Oratorians"
John Smeaton – 3.7.2010
www.spuc-director.blogspot.com
How scandalous that, on the front page of this weekend's Catholic Herald, the removal of three courageous Birmingham Oratorians, defenders of human life, is directly linked to a decision that Pope Benedict is now "able to come" to Cardinal Newman's burial place and home during his lifetime. Please read, below, what Dr Tom Ward says about this.
Fr Philip Cleevely, Fr Dermot Fenlon and Brother Lewis Berry, three of the closest allies of families and of the pro-life movement in Britain, who have been skilfully and publicly advocating papal teaching on contraception, abortion and homosexuality, are currently unjustly exiled for an indefinite period from the Oratory in Birmingham, their home.
In a previous post, I asked:
Could it be that external forces, who want a Catholic Church which is inclusive of the Blairs' anti-life, anti-family positions, are bringing pressures to bear in this situation? How very convenient it would be, especially in the run-up to Pope Benedict's visit, if uncomfortable issues such as the teaching of the Church on contraception, abortion and on homosexuality were also safely hidden away?
What on earth are Catholics and non-Catholics to make of the situation? On the one hand three staunch pro-life, pro-family advocates suffer apparently peremptory ecclesiastical injustice. On the other hand Archbishop Nichols, just a couple of months ago, was painting the previous government's intentions on sex and relatonships education in an entirely postive light - when those intentions included continuing to enable the promotion and facilitation of abortion, contraception and homosexuality in schools, including Catholic schools.
What on earth is happening when, on the one hand, apparently peremptory ecclesiastical injustice can be unhesitatingly meted out to staunch upholders of Catholic teaching on life and the family, and, on the other hand, the appointment of a blatantly anti-life, anti-family former Member of Parliament to be deputy director of the Catholic Education Service is indignantly defended by representatives of the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales?
One person who won't be safely hidden away is the widely-respected Dr Tom Ward, president of the National Association of Catholic Families and corresponding member of the Pontifical Academy for Life. Last night he made the following statement:
"Three Oratorians have been condemned to an indefinite sentence of removal after abrupt eviction from their home at Cardinal Newman’s Oratory in Birmingham.
"This penalty of an indefinite sentence to widely distant monasteries is ordinarily associated with very serious moral failings. However it appears that the investigative process was incomplete before they started their sentence. How therefore could there have been a verdict? Indeed was there even a charge? These men are attested by their own authorities to be innocent, virtuous and to have done no harm. They have an almost unrivalled track record in this country of defending life and the primary and inalienable right of parents as educators of their children. They are totally faithful to and outspoken in their defence of the Papal Magisterium.
"The draconian penalty (although some will protest that they would prefer some other euphemism) awarded to these three just men was press released by the official spokesman of their own Oratory. The resultant publicity has done, indeed continues to do vast injustice to their deservedly good reputation yet, to my knowledge, not one priest in the land has publicly defended the names of their innocent brothers. The only defence of these three Oratorians has come from parents whose families the Oratorians have defended against the encroachments of a hostile government which has, all too often, had hierarchical support.
"It is a scandal that these three men, one of whom is 68 years old, have been abruptly removed from their homes and sent into exile for an indefinite period.
"It is a scandal to put the physical and psychological health of innocent men at such risk.
"It is a scandal that these men with outstanding ability to cooperate in the defence of the authentic understanding of Cardinal Newman’s teaching on conscience have been summarily removed from the Oratory which, in the light of the imminent Papal beatification of its founder, has now become the best platform in the world from which to defend Newman and the Papal Magisterium.
"It is a scandal that the enforced absence from the Oratory of such men has been reported as now enabling the Pope to visit the Oratory.
"It is quite simply a national scandal."
www.spuc-director.blogspot.com
How scandalous that, on the front page of this weekend's Catholic Herald, the removal of three courageous Birmingham Oratorians, defenders of human life, is directly linked to a decision that Pope Benedict is now "able to come" to Cardinal Newman's burial place and home during his lifetime. Please read, below, what Dr Tom Ward says about this.
Fr Philip Cleevely, Fr Dermot Fenlon and Brother Lewis Berry, three of the closest allies of families and of the pro-life movement in Britain, who have been skilfully and publicly advocating papal teaching on contraception, abortion and homosexuality, are currently unjustly exiled for an indefinite period from the Oratory in Birmingham, their home.
In a previous post, I asked:
Could it be that external forces, who want a Catholic Church which is inclusive of the Blairs' anti-life, anti-family positions, are bringing pressures to bear in this situation? How very convenient it would be, especially in the run-up to Pope Benedict's visit, if uncomfortable issues such as the teaching of the Church on contraception, abortion and on homosexuality were also safely hidden away?
What on earth are Catholics and non-Catholics to make of the situation? On the one hand three staunch pro-life, pro-family advocates suffer apparently peremptory ecclesiastical injustice. On the other hand Archbishop Nichols, just a couple of months ago, was painting the previous government's intentions on sex and relatonships education in an entirely postive light - when those intentions included continuing to enable the promotion and facilitation of abortion, contraception and homosexuality in schools, including Catholic schools.
What on earth is happening when, on the one hand, apparently peremptory ecclesiastical injustice can be unhesitatingly meted out to staunch upholders of Catholic teaching on life and the family, and, on the other hand, the appointment of a blatantly anti-life, anti-family former Member of Parliament to be deputy director of the Catholic Education Service is indignantly defended by representatives of the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales?
One person who won't be safely hidden away is the widely-respected Dr Tom Ward, president of the National Association of Catholic Families and corresponding member of the Pontifical Academy for Life. Last night he made the following statement:
"Three Oratorians have been condemned to an indefinite sentence of removal after abrupt eviction from their home at Cardinal Newman’s Oratory in Birmingham.
"This penalty of an indefinite sentence to widely distant monasteries is ordinarily associated with very serious moral failings. However it appears that the investigative process was incomplete before they started their sentence. How therefore could there have been a verdict? Indeed was there even a charge? These men are attested by their own authorities to be innocent, virtuous and to have done no harm. They have an almost unrivalled track record in this country of defending life and the primary and inalienable right of parents as educators of their children. They are totally faithful to and outspoken in their defence of the Papal Magisterium.
"The draconian penalty (although some will protest that they would prefer some other euphemism) awarded to these three just men was press released by the official spokesman of their own Oratory. The resultant publicity has done, indeed continues to do vast injustice to their deservedly good reputation yet, to my knowledge, not one priest in the land has publicly defended the names of their innocent brothers. The only defence of these three Oratorians has come from parents whose families the Oratorians have defended against the encroachments of a hostile government which has, all too often, had hierarchical support.
"It is a scandal that these three men, one of whom is 68 years old, have been abruptly removed from their homes and sent into exile for an indefinite period.
"It is a scandal to put the physical and psychological health of innocent men at such risk.
"It is a scandal that these men with outstanding ability to cooperate in the defence of the authentic understanding of Cardinal Newman’s teaching on conscience have been summarily removed from the Oratory which, in the light of the imminent Papal beatification of its founder, has now become the best platform in the world from which to defend Newman and the Papal Magisterium.
"It is a scandal that the enforced absence from the Oratory of such men has been reported as now enabling the Pope to visit the Oratory.
"It is quite simply a national scandal."
"The Birmingham Three: Disagreements About the Beatification"
Catholic and loving it – James Preece on 2.7.2010
www.lovingit.co.uk
I didn't draw this (you can tell because the author has artistic skills)...
Meanwhile Anna Arco writes...
There were some doubts about whether the Pope would be able to go to the Birmingham Oratory because of controversies within the community. Two members were removed to abbeys in Leicestershire and Scotland last month while a third was sent home.
...
Fr Richard Duffield, the current Provost of the Birmingham Oratory, said: “It’s marvellous news. We’re utterly delighted.
[link]
Remember when this was first announced in The Tablet, they said...
A spokesman for the Oratory described the decision as an “internal domestic affair” but said that there had been disagreements in the community about how best to approach the beatification of their founder Cardinal John Henry Newman.
So there were "disagreements in the community about how best to approach the beatification" and now we hear that these "controversies within the community" lead to "doubts about whether the Pope would be able to go to the Birmingham Oratory".
These holy men were sent away for having the wrong views about the beatification of Newman. Put out of the way so that those with the 'correct' views could get on with doing things according to plan.
What is the the 'correct' view? Don't rock the boat!
Boat rockers will not be tolerated.
"The Birmingham Three: Bring Them Home"
Catholic and loving it – James Preece on 1.7.2010
www.lovingit.co.uk
Listening on the Radio yesterday to Jack Valero speaking about the Birmingham Three, I couldn't help thinking that the more he spoke, the less sense it all made.
Jack's narrative in all this is that it's not a big deal. It's a minor, tiny, small internal matter that we wouldn't even have heard of if it were not for the beatification.
"of course you can make it big" he says.
Sending somebody away for a few days: Not big. Sending somebody away for seven weeks is getting bigger. If these guys are away until the beatification it will have been months which is bigger still.
It's not me that's making this big. The longer it goes on, the bigger it gets.
Want to make it small? Bring them home.
Jack said they had been "asked to go away and pray for a while". Well it's been a while now so bring them home.
Jack said "they are away now, they will come back". This is excellent news! It's also the first time anybody from the Oratory has confirmed that the three will be coming home. Why not bring them home now?
Jack said "We are working together, so there's no falling out and there's no casting away it's just a time away to cool down" but surely seven weeks is more than enough time to cool down so bring them home.
Jack said "they can come back soon and we can continue as normal". Soon... That's a good word. How about now?
Jack said "there's no indication they've done something wrong, they've been punished or anything. these words are wrong they give the wrong impression". If they haven't done anything wrong, why can't they come back?
It is ludicrous to claim that the three have done nothing wrong, are not being punished and there is "no falling out" and then to say that they must be away any longer.
This is getting bigger, but that can stop right now by bringing these men home.
www.lovingit.co.uk
Listening on the Radio yesterday to Jack Valero speaking about the Birmingham Three, I couldn't help thinking that the more he spoke, the less sense it all made.
Jack's narrative in all this is that it's not a big deal. It's a minor, tiny, small internal matter that we wouldn't even have heard of if it were not for the beatification.
"of course you can make it big" he says.
Sending somebody away for a few days: Not big. Sending somebody away for seven weeks is getting bigger. If these guys are away until the beatification it will have been months which is bigger still.
It's not me that's making this big. The longer it goes on, the bigger it gets.
Want to make it small? Bring them home.
Jack said they had been "asked to go away and pray for a while". Well it's been a while now so bring them home.
Jack said "they are away now, they will come back". This is excellent news! It's also the first time anybody from the Oratory has confirmed that the three will be coming home. Why not bring them home now?
Jack said "We are working together, so there's no falling out and there's no casting away it's just a time away to cool down" but surely seven weeks is more than enough time to cool down so bring them home.
Jack said "they can come back soon and we can continue as normal". Soon... That's a good word. How about now?
Jack said "there's no indication they've done something wrong, they've been punished or anything. these words are wrong they give the wrong impression". If they haven't done anything wrong, why can't they come back?
It is ludicrous to claim that the three have done nothing wrong, are not being punished and there is "no falling out" and then to say that they must be away any longer.
This is getting bigger, but that can stop right now by bringing these men home.
BBC West Midlands
Catholic and loving it – James Preece on 30.6.2010
www.lovingit.co.uk
A couple of days ago I was contacted by a fellow from BBC West Midlands Radio who wanted to know if I would be willing to give the story on why the Birmingham 3 have been sent away.
This morning I appeared opposite Jack Valero who gave the usual nonsense about it being an internal matter - you know, because Catholic parishes are just like McDonalds and the way they treat their "staff" is not your concern.
Then there's this thing about the three needing time "to recover" - that's a new one.
Recover from what?
The simple fact is that if these three men have been sent away over internal disputes, seven weeks should be more than enough time to sort things out and the excuse is wearing thin.
Still, I'm pretty sure I heard Jack say that this is not permanent and the three will be coming back. That's good news - unless it's a lie.
Of course, he didn't say when.
www.lovingit.co.uk
A couple of days ago I was contacted by a fellow from BBC West Midlands Radio who wanted to know if I would be willing to give the story on why the Birmingham 3 have been sent away.
This morning I appeared opposite Jack Valero who gave the usual nonsense about it being an internal matter - you know, because Catholic parishes are just like McDonalds and the way they treat their "staff" is not your concern.
Then there's this thing about the three needing time "to recover" - that's a new one.
Recover from what?
The simple fact is that if these three men have been sent away over internal disputes, seven weeks should be more than enough time to sort things out and the excuse is wearing thin.
Still, I'm pretty sure I heard Jack say that this is not permanent and the three will be coming back. That's good news - unless it's a lie.
Of course, he didn't say when.
"Stonewalling at the Birmingham Oratory"
Catholic and loving it - James Preece on 21.6.2010
www.lovingit.co.uk
Do priests serve a purely utilitarian function?
Do they exist to provide Mass and the other Sacraments over the counter like fast food? The same impersonal service. Welcome to McChurch, Would you like fries with that? Have a nice day...
Is that how it works?
Is that why Fr Ignatius Harrison thinks that parishioners of the Birmingham Oratory deserve no explanation as to why much loved spiritual directors have been "indefinitely" banished?
Parishioners of Birmingham Oratory write...
Despite sending two letters to Father Ignatius Harrison, on the advice of the Provost of Birmingham Oratory, we have received no reply. Clearly it is felt that as mere parents and parishioners we are owed no explanation, almost as if it is none of our business. There seems to be no particular concern for us as parents, trying to bring up our children in a world ferociously hostile to our Catholic values, deprived of two priests and a Brother who were like manna in the desert in terms of their courageous support. We simply cannot afford to lose their brave voices and their tireless pastoral support. Our family and many others are devastated at the breath-taking injustice of serving a sentence of indefinite banishment on three good and holy men who are guilty of no transgression, save perhaps that of speaking up a little too zealously in defence of life, of our families and of our parental rights. This scandal to our children is profound and will not be remedied until Father Dermot Fenlon, Father Philip Cleevely and Brother Lewis Berry are restored to our Oratory, Cardinal Newman's Oratory.
The mistake those parishioners made was thinking the Birmingham Oratory any different from McDonalds and thinking their relationship with their priest was any different from their relationship with a teenager in a paper hat.
Was it?
Or is it Father Ignatius Harrison who is mistaken?
www.lovingit.co.uk
Do priests serve a purely utilitarian function?
Do they exist to provide Mass and the other Sacraments over the counter like fast food? The same impersonal service. Welcome to McChurch, Would you like fries with that? Have a nice day...
Is that how it works?
Is that why Fr Ignatius Harrison thinks that parishioners of the Birmingham Oratory deserve no explanation as to why much loved spiritual directors have been "indefinitely" banished?
Parishioners of Birmingham Oratory write...
Despite sending two letters to Father Ignatius Harrison, on the advice of the Provost of Birmingham Oratory, we have received no reply. Clearly it is felt that as mere parents and parishioners we are owed no explanation, almost as if it is none of our business. There seems to be no particular concern for us as parents, trying to bring up our children in a world ferociously hostile to our Catholic values, deprived of two priests and a Brother who were like manna in the desert in terms of their courageous support. We simply cannot afford to lose their brave voices and their tireless pastoral support. Our family and many others are devastated at the breath-taking injustice of serving a sentence of indefinite banishment on three good and holy men who are guilty of no transgression, save perhaps that of speaking up a little too zealously in defence of life, of our families and of our parental rights. This scandal to our children is profound and will not be remedied until Father Dermot Fenlon, Father Philip Cleevely and Brother Lewis Berry are restored to our Oratory, Cardinal Newman's Oratory.
The mistake those parishioners made was thinking the Birmingham Oratory any different from McDonalds and thinking their relationship with their priest was any different from their relationship with a teenager in a paper hat.
Was it?
Or is it Father Ignatius Harrison who is mistaken?
"Everything now covered up will be uncovered at the Birmingham Oratory"
John Smeaton on 17.6.2010
www.spuc-director.blogspot.com
I remain perplexed and concerned (following my earlier post) about a very public injustice being done to the members of the Birmingham Oratory, both to those remaining and to the three who have been sent away and separated "for an indefinite period", according to The Tablet (21st May, 2010): Fr Philip Cleevely, Fr Dermot Fenlon and Brother Lewis Berry. This injustice is manifestly being perpretrated by forces external to the Birmingham Oratory.
The Tablet's report speaks of an internal disagreement ...
"A spokesman for the Oratory described the decision as an 'internal domestic affair' but said that there had been disagreements in the community about how best to approach the beatification of their founder Cardinal John Henry Newman"
... but this explanation simply doesn't fit the facts - and neither does A Reluctant Sinner's suggestion that it's a case of three conservative members of the Community versus the others. All members of the Birmingham Oratory are "conservatives" on the fundamental moral issues raised in the various news reports about this matter.
It's a known fact that all the Birmingham Oratorians stand wholeheartedly behind the approach adopted by the Birmingham Oratory's Newman Cause blogpost on pro-life issues: for example, the inside story on the meeting between Cherie Blair (pictured), the wife of the former British prime minister and famous dissenter from Catholic church teaching, and Reverend Jack Sullivan, who was healed through Newman’s intercession in 2001.
The banished Oratorian Fathers wrote at the time - with the total backing of all the Oratory community:
"As soon as he was made aware of Mrs Blair’s record of public dissent from the Church’s teaching, Jack requested that all reference to meeting her be removed from the published recollections of his visit. The article on Times Online was duly amended yesterday (November 26th), but unfortunately Jack’s request came too late to remove the reference to Mrs Blair from the print version of the Herald.
"The conjunction of Mrs Blair’s ‘conscientious’ dissent from the teaching of the Church with Jack Sullivan’s apparent endorsement of her could do harm to Newman’s reputation, and that is our reason for posting this clarification. Newman is indeed the great teacher of the rights and duties of conscience. It is of the greatest importance that his teaching is not used to make him the patron of Catholics, like Cherie Blair and others, who in the name of conscience practice dissent from the Church’s teaching ..."
Equally supported by the whole of the Birmingham Oratory was the Newman Cause blogpost criticising The Tablet's "provocative juxtaposition" of placing Newman and conscience in the company of Tony Blair. It stated:
"However many times it is refuted as an interpretation of Newman, the idea that he is the patron of ‘conscientious’ dissent shows a stubborn tendency to resurface.
"It is in this context that The Tablet’s having placed Newman and conscience in the company of Tony Blair amounts to a provocative juxtaposition."
The Newman cause website continued:
"Since becoming a Catholic, Mr Blair has refused every invitation to disown and repent of these things. Although they are simply incompatible with the Catholic Faith and were pursued by him, before he was a Catholic, with every appearance of conviction, Mr Blair has refused since entering the Church to say whether in these respects he has undergone a change of mind and heart. In refusing to clarify his position, he implies that he still believes that they were the right things to do.
"If this implication is correct, some commentators, including Catholics, have sought to justify it by saying that Mr Blair’s silence is because his support for abortion, embryo experimentation, civil partnerships and gay adoption has always been for him, and remains now, a matter of conscience. Now this is the danger in The Tablet’s association of Newman and conscience with the case of Tony Blair. If as a Catholic Mr Blair thinks that his conscience directs him to support such positions, to invoke Newman in defence of his stance would be a travesty. For Newman, no Catholic can be in good conscience in supporting the positions Mr Blair espoused. The impossibility of conscience, enlightened by Faith, justifying adherence to evil is one of the most important of Newman’s lessons for our times."
The Newman Cause blogpost sets out a powerful position, which was fully supported by the whole community, on sexual orientation issues as well as on pro-life matters. Its tone and theme are a world away from the politically-correct environment, whipping up concern about homophobia, portrayed by A Reluctant Sinner and in The Times report about the expulsion of the three Oratorians.
However, "A Reluctant Sinner" with its disingenuous reference to "mere speculation on my part" - is full of very precise details which describe external pressures being brought to bear on the poor Oratorians.
Could it be that external forces who want a Catholic Church which is inclusive of the Blairs' anti-life, anti-family positions are bringing pressures to bear in this situation? How very convenient it would be, especially in the run-up to Pope Benedict's visit, if uncomfortable issues such as the teaching of the Church on contraception, abortion and on homosexuality were also safely hidden away? And how important it is that those on the side of life and the family, especially when it comes to the church's teaching on these matters, and especially as the papal visit to Britain approaches, to bear in mind the words of Jesus Christ:
"Everything now covered up will be uncovered, and everything now hidden will be made clear. For this reason, whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight and what you have whispered in hidden places will be proclaimed from the housetops". (Luke, 12, 2-3)
This text also seems most apt in the case of the Birmingham Oratory and the external pressures being brought to bear on its shamefully misrepresented community.
www.spuc-director.blogspot.com
I remain perplexed and concerned (following my earlier post) about a very public injustice being done to the members of the Birmingham Oratory, both to those remaining and to the three who have been sent away and separated "for an indefinite period", according to The Tablet (21st May, 2010): Fr Philip Cleevely, Fr Dermot Fenlon and Brother Lewis Berry. This injustice is manifestly being perpretrated by forces external to the Birmingham Oratory.
The Tablet's report speaks of an internal disagreement ...
"A spokesman for the Oratory described the decision as an 'internal domestic affair' but said that there had been disagreements in the community about how best to approach the beatification of their founder Cardinal John Henry Newman"
... but this explanation simply doesn't fit the facts - and neither does A Reluctant Sinner's suggestion that it's a case of three conservative members of the Community versus the others. All members of the Birmingham Oratory are "conservatives" on the fundamental moral issues raised in the various news reports about this matter.
It's a known fact that all the Birmingham Oratorians stand wholeheartedly behind the approach adopted by the Birmingham Oratory's Newman Cause blogpost on pro-life issues: for example, the inside story on the meeting between Cherie Blair (pictured), the wife of the former British prime minister and famous dissenter from Catholic church teaching, and Reverend Jack Sullivan, who was healed through Newman’s intercession in 2001.
The banished Oratorian Fathers wrote at the time - with the total backing of all the Oratory community:
"As soon as he was made aware of Mrs Blair’s record of public dissent from the Church’s teaching, Jack requested that all reference to meeting her be removed from the published recollections of his visit. The article on Times Online was duly amended yesterday (November 26th), but unfortunately Jack’s request came too late to remove the reference to Mrs Blair from the print version of the Herald.
"The conjunction of Mrs Blair’s ‘conscientious’ dissent from the teaching of the Church with Jack Sullivan’s apparent endorsement of her could do harm to Newman’s reputation, and that is our reason for posting this clarification. Newman is indeed the great teacher of the rights and duties of conscience. It is of the greatest importance that his teaching is not used to make him the patron of Catholics, like Cherie Blair and others, who in the name of conscience practice dissent from the Church’s teaching ..."
Equally supported by the whole of the Birmingham Oratory was the Newman Cause blogpost criticising The Tablet's "provocative juxtaposition" of placing Newman and conscience in the company of Tony Blair. It stated:
"However many times it is refuted as an interpretation of Newman, the idea that he is the patron of ‘conscientious’ dissent shows a stubborn tendency to resurface.
"It is in this context that The Tablet’s having placed Newman and conscience in the company of Tony Blair amounts to a provocative juxtaposition."
The Newman cause website continued:
"Since becoming a Catholic, Mr Blair has refused every invitation to disown and repent of these things. Although they are simply incompatible with the Catholic Faith and were pursued by him, before he was a Catholic, with every appearance of conviction, Mr Blair has refused since entering the Church to say whether in these respects he has undergone a change of mind and heart. In refusing to clarify his position, he implies that he still believes that they were the right things to do.
"If this implication is correct, some commentators, including Catholics, have sought to justify it by saying that Mr Blair’s silence is because his support for abortion, embryo experimentation, civil partnerships and gay adoption has always been for him, and remains now, a matter of conscience. Now this is the danger in The Tablet’s association of Newman and conscience with the case of Tony Blair. If as a Catholic Mr Blair thinks that his conscience directs him to support such positions, to invoke Newman in defence of his stance would be a travesty. For Newman, no Catholic can be in good conscience in supporting the positions Mr Blair espoused. The impossibility of conscience, enlightened by Faith, justifying adherence to evil is one of the most important of Newman’s lessons for our times."
The Newman Cause blogpost sets out a powerful position, which was fully supported by the whole community, on sexual orientation issues as well as on pro-life matters. Its tone and theme are a world away from the politically-correct environment, whipping up concern about homophobia, portrayed by A Reluctant Sinner and in The Times report about the expulsion of the three Oratorians.
However, "A Reluctant Sinner" with its disingenuous reference to "mere speculation on my part" - is full of very precise details which describe external pressures being brought to bear on the poor Oratorians.
Could it be that external forces who want a Catholic Church which is inclusive of the Blairs' anti-life, anti-family positions are bringing pressures to bear in this situation? How very convenient it would be, especially in the run-up to Pope Benedict's visit, if uncomfortable issues such as the teaching of the Church on contraception, abortion and on homosexuality were also safely hidden away? And how important it is that those on the side of life and the family, especially when it comes to the church's teaching on these matters, and especially as the papal visit to Britain approaches, to bear in mind the words of Jesus Christ:
"Everything now covered up will be uncovered, and everything now hidden will be made clear. For this reason, whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight and what you have whispered in hidden places will be proclaimed from the housetops". (Luke, 12, 2-3)
This text also seems most apt in the case of the Birmingham Oratory and the external pressures being brought to bear on its shamefully misrepresented community.
"Birmingham Oratory: Am I just being paranoid?"
Catholic and Loving it - James Preece on 10.6.2010
www.lovingit.co.uk
My blog entry on the fight for the real Cardinal Newman attracted quite a lot of attention including a mention by Ruth Gledhil and visits from Vatican City IP addresses.
I've received a lot of supportive emails especially from parishioners at Birmingham who are deeply concerned at the disappearance of much loved priests, upset at what they see as a lie from the pulpit and in a far better position than I am to know what is going on. Some of these people have been going to the Oratory for decades, they know the priests and the community very well and they are deeply concerned about the situation.
That said, I've also received quite a bit of criticism including some from people I respect and trust. These people are mainly saying that they like my blog and I often make good points I am wrong on this one. In fact, they say, I am starting to sound paranoid.
Am I being paranoid?
Or is the situation in England and Wales simply very, very bad?
Let's do a quick recap...
• Oona Stannard director of the Catholic Education Service describes Connexions as "a service to be welcomed". Connexions as a matter of policy promotes contraception and refers young girls for abortion without parental knowledge. Connexions are still to this very day being promoted in Catholic Schools. Archbishop Nichols (at that time the Bishop in charge of education) said and did nothing.
• Birmingham Archdiocese publishes "All That I Am", a sex and relationships education programme. The programme includes DVD clips of 3D animated nudity to be shown to mixed classes of ten year olds. Archbishop Nichol's name appears in the credits. Parents complain but Archbishop Nichols does nothing.
• Terry Prendergast the director of Marriage Care (an organisation funded by the Catholic Church with Archbishop Nichols as president) appeared in the national news saying that homosexuals and unmarried couples could be just as good parents as husbands and wives (link). He attacked Church's teaching on Marriage and Family Life. What did the Archbishop Nichol's do? Nothing. They remained silent and Terry Prendergast remains director of Marriage Care. You pay his wages.
• Director of Catholic Education Service Oona Stannard appears before a parliamentary public bill committee and is asked her views on what age parents should be allowed to withdraw their children from sex education classes. She states that she would like to sit on the fence. Eventually she says she would "err on saying: allow the right of withdrawal until 16". This total failure to defend the rights of parents is recorded on the Bishop's Conference own website here but still the Catholic Bishop's do nothing.
• Ed Balls appears on Radio 4 saying that under his proposed legislation a Catholic school "must give a balanced view on abortion. They must give both sides of the argument. They must explain how to access an abortion." he went on to say that he had "the support of the Catholic Church and Archbishop Nichols" (link). Did Archbishop Nichols speak out saying "You do not have my support!" - No. He remained silent while CES discouraged Catholics from opposing Ball's Bill.
• The Catholic Education Service go beyond parody when they appoint Greg Pope as deputy directory. Greg Pope a retired Labour MP who voted for abortion.
So... the Catholic Bishop's Conference have consistently turned a blind eye. Oona Stannard and Terry Prendegast are bullet proof and Labour are not to be criticised. Is it paranoia to suggest that there may be pattern here? I don't think so. The pattern is plainly obvious: The Bishop's of England and Wales are heavily influenced by modern lefty liberal "progressive" views.
They are couldn't oppose Prendergast because they are terrified of appearing homophobic (besides which they probably agree with him) and they won't oppose sex education or promotion of contraception in schools because they actually think it's a good idea. Why did Ed Balls go on the radio and say he has "the support of the Catholic Church and Archbishop Nichols"? Because he has! He just didn't realise he was supposed to keep quiet about it...
Speaking of keeping quiet, here lies the second piece of the jigsaw puzzle. The Bishop's Conference are also remarkably skilled at getting good men to keep quiet. Unfortunately, I can't give you a detailed list (for obvious reasons) but I have lost count of the number of times a priest or a lay employee of a diocese has said to me "I agree with you James, but I can't say anything because I'm [insert role here] and I have to be loyal to the Bishop". Often they are held hostage by some good work they are doing and worried that speaking out might harm that good work, sometimes they just don't want to lose their job. This leads to absurd situations where many people are aware of a problem but nobody says anything - no wonder we had a sex abuse crisis.
We live in an environment where Terry Prendergast can deny Catholic Teaching on Marriage and receive a whacking great director's salary funded by the Catholic Church but any priest who so much as thinks the words "ad orientem" must sneak around like he is plotting to blow up parliament.
Now the Papal Visit is approaching and even before it happens the mere mention of Pope Benedict is causing all sorts of friction. People like Richard Dawkins and Peter Tatchel are all over the news saying awfully mean things about Catholics and how full of hate we are and the Bishops are very keen not to give them any ammunition. Obviously nobody from the Bishop's Conference is going to say anything that's not politically correct - there will be no mention of contraception or abortion or homosexuality from them - but what about people who won't stick to the plan?
So what about the Birmingham Oratory?
Who are we to believe?
Local parishioners who have known the community for years are saying that they believe the Oratory is being leaned on to make sure that the Papal visit goes smoothly and there are no "unfortunate" remarks. Who tell me that these three men are perhaps not the most traditional but the most outspoken - the people most likely to rock the boat and that they were already causing difficulties by vetoing meetings about a proposed Newman centre.
Or do we believe the Oratory spokesman who is paid by the Bishop's Conference?
Perhaps if the Bishop's Conference did not have such a clear history of supporting people like Terry Prendergast, Oona Stannard, Greg Pope and Ed Balls while forcing good men to act like outlaws, I might find it easier to believe their side of the story.
www.lovingit.co.uk
My blog entry on the fight for the real Cardinal Newman attracted quite a lot of attention including a mention by Ruth Gledhil and visits from Vatican City IP addresses.
I've received a lot of supportive emails especially from parishioners at Birmingham who are deeply concerned at the disappearance of much loved priests, upset at what they see as a lie from the pulpit and in a far better position than I am to know what is going on. Some of these people have been going to the Oratory for decades, they know the priests and the community very well and they are deeply concerned about the situation.
That said, I've also received quite a bit of criticism including some from people I respect and trust. These people are mainly saying that they like my blog and I often make good points I am wrong on this one. In fact, they say, I am starting to sound paranoid.
Am I being paranoid?
Or is the situation in England and Wales simply very, very bad?
Let's do a quick recap...
• Oona Stannard director of the Catholic Education Service describes Connexions as "a service to be welcomed". Connexions as a matter of policy promotes contraception and refers young girls for abortion without parental knowledge. Connexions are still to this very day being promoted in Catholic Schools. Archbishop Nichols (at that time the Bishop in charge of education) said and did nothing.
• Birmingham Archdiocese publishes "All That I Am", a sex and relationships education programme. The programme includes DVD clips of 3D animated nudity to be shown to mixed classes of ten year olds. Archbishop Nichol's name appears in the credits. Parents complain but Archbishop Nichols does nothing.
• Terry Prendergast the director of Marriage Care (an organisation funded by the Catholic Church with Archbishop Nichols as president) appeared in the national news saying that homosexuals and unmarried couples could be just as good parents as husbands and wives (link). He attacked Church's teaching on Marriage and Family Life. What did the Archbishop Nichol's do? Nothing. They remained silent and Terry Prendergast remains director of Marriage Care. You pay his wages.
• Director of Catholic Education Service Oona Stannard appears before a parliamentary public bill committee and is asked her views on what age parents should be allowed to withdraw their children from sex education classes. She states that she would like to sit on the fence. Eventually she says she would "err on saying: allow the right of withdrawal until 16". This total failure to defend the rights of parents is recorded on the Bishop's Conference own website here but still the Catholic Bishop's do nothing.
• Ed Balls appears on Radio 4 saying that under his proposed legislation a Catholic school "must give a balanced view on abortion. They must give both sides of the argument. They must explain how to access an abortion." he went on to say that he had "the support of the Catholic Church and Archbishop Nichols" (link). Did Archbishop Nichols speak out saying "You do not have my support!" - No. He remained silent while CES discouraged Catholics from opposing Ball's Bill.
• The Catholic Education Service go beyond parody when they appoint Greg Pope as deputy directory. Greg Pope a retired Labour MP who voted for abortion.
So... the Catholic Bishop's Conference have consistently turned a blind eye. Oona Stannard and Terry Prendegast are bullet proof and Labour are not to be criticised. Is it paranoia to suggest that there may be pattern here? I don't think so. The pattern is plainly obvious: The Bishop's of England and Wales are heavily influenced by modern lefty liberal "progressive" views.
They are couldn't oppose Prendergast because they are terrified of appearing homophobic (besides which they probably agree with him) and they won't oppose sex education or promotion of contraception in schools because they actually think it's a good idea. Why did Ed Balls go on the radio and say he has "the support of the Catholic Church and Archbishop Nichols"? Because he has! He just didn't realise he was supposed to keep quiet about it...
Speaking of keeping quiet, here lies the second piece of the jigsaw puzzle. The Bishop's Conference are also remarkably skilled at getting good men to keep quiet. Unfortunately, I can't give you a detailed list (for obvious reasons) but I have lost count of the number of times a priest or a lay employee of a diocese has said to me "I agree with you James, but I can't say anything because I'm [insert role here] and I have to be loyal to the Bishop". Often they are held hostage by some good work they are doing and worried that speaking out might harm that good work, sometimes they just don't want to lose their job. This leads to absurd situations where many people are aware of a problem but nobody says anything - no wonder we had a sex abuse crisis.
We live in an environment where Terry Prendergast can deny Catholic Teaching on Marriage and receive a whacking great director's salary funded by the Catholic Church but any priest who so much as thinks the words "ad orientem" must sneak around like he is plotting to blow up parliament.
Now the Papal Visit is approaching and even before it happens the mere mention of Pope Benedict is causing all sorts of friction. People like Richard Dawkins and Peter Tatchel are all over the news saying awfully mean things about Catholics and how full of hate we are and the Bishops are very keen not to give them any ammunition. Obviously nobody from the Bishop's Conference is going to say anything that's not politically correct - there will be no mention of contraception or abortion or homosexuality from them - but what about people who won't stick to the plan?
So what about the Birmingham Oratory?
Who are we to believe?
Local parishioners who have known the community for years are saying that they believe the Oratory is being leaned on to make sure that the Papal visit goes smoothly and there are no "unfortunate" remarks. Who tell me that these three men are perhaps not the most traditional but the most outspoken - the people most likely to rock the boat and that they were already causing difficulties by vetoing meetings about a proposed Newman centre.
Or do we believe the Oratory spokesman who is paid by the Bishop's Conference?
Perhaps if the Bishop's Conference did not have such a clear history of supporting people like Terry Prendergast, Oona Stannard, Greg Pope and Ed Balls while forcing good men to act like outlaws, I might find it easier to believe their side of the story.
"Three Birmingham Oratorians, champions of the unborn, are apparently silenced"
John Smeaton on 7.6.2010
www.spuc-director.blogspot.com
James Preece of Catholic and Loving it has published a fascinating post today about the battle over Cardinal Newman's legacy. He writes about the mysterious disappearance from Birmingham Oratory (pictured) of Fr Dermot Fenlon, Fr Philip Cleevely and Brother Lewis Berry - three Oratorians who have been publicly opposing an interpretation of Newman as the patron of ‘conscientious’ dissent; and three Oratorians who have publicly opposed the sex and relationships education policies of the last Government and of the Catholic bishops' conference of England and Wales.
The National Association of Catholic Families informs us that Father Fenlon and Father Cleevely, and Brother Lewis have been ordered to three separate monasteries hundreds of miles apart, with no public explanation, and no word as to when they can be expected back.
These three Oratorians were, to my knowledge, responsible, for a powerful critique of The Tablet's placing of "Newman and conscience in the company of Tony Blair", calling it "a provocative juxtaposition".
The official website of Birmingham Oratory said last October:
"Mr Blair’s conduct as a Member of Parliament and Prime Minister is a matter of public record. There can be no question that during his Parliamentary career, before his reception into the Catholic Church, he advocated and voted for legislation which, among other things, permitted destructive experimentation and other lethal attacks upon human beings at their most vulnerable, and which significantly furthered cultural hostility towards the Sacrament of Matrimony, family life and the proper care of children in need.
"Since becoming a Catholic, Mr Blair has refused every invitation to disown and repent of these things. Although they are simply incompatible with the Catholic Faith and were pursued by him, before he was a Catholic, with every appearance of conviction, Mr Blair has refused since entering the Church to say whether in these respects he has undergone a change of mind and heart. In refusing to clarify his position, he implies that he still believes that they were the right things to do.
"If this implication is correct, some commentators, including Catholics, have sought to justify it by saying that Mr Blair’s silence is because his support for abortion, embryo experimentation, civil partnerships and gay adoption has always been for him, and remains now, a matter of conscience. Now this is the danger in The Tablet’s association of Newman and conscience with the case of Tony Blair. If as a Catholic Mr Blair thinks that his conscience directs him to support such positions, to invoke Newman in defence of his stance would be a travesty. For Newman, no Catholic can be in good conscience in supporting the positions Mr Blair espoused. The impossibility of conscience, enlightened by Faith, justifying adherence to evil is one of the most important of Newman’s lessons for our times."
In this connection, I don't know if there's any truth in the Telegraph's report that Labour’s favourite events management company has been employed by the Church along with a former aide to Tony Blair to help in organizing Pope Benedict's visit to Britain in September, a visit which includes the beatification of Cardinal Newman. And, of course, even if the Telegraph report is true, this would not lead to the inevitable conclusion that there's a connection between the disappearance of the three Oratorians and their powerful dismissal of The Tablet’s association of Newman and conscience with the case of Tony Blair.
However, I understand it was these three Oratorians who also set out so eloquently the case against the Catholic Education Service's support (and, one might add, Bishop McMahon's support and Archbishop Vincent Nichols's support) for the Labour government's plans to make sex and relationships education compulsory in all State schools in England between the ages of five and sixteen.
It's worth recalling what was said in the Birmingham Oratory newsletter last March:
"Those in our society committed to a radical anti-Catholic agenda, as well as many 'ordinary' people with moral opinions formed more or less unconsciously by anti-Catholic forces, greeted the Government's recent 'concessions' regarding school-based sex education ('Amendment 70') as a climb-down, cynically designed to appease the Church and attract Catholic votes in the General Election. Others, predictably, have hailed the Amendment as a victory for the Church, enabling Catholic schools to continue to uphold her teachings in the sensitive and profoundly important area of human relationships and sexuality.
"Both sides are mistaken. On none of the key issues was there a Government 'climb-down', and in none of them any kind of 'victory' for the Church. Anti-Catholic forces have nothing to fear from Amendment 70. The Catholic Church in England and Wales, by contrast, faces what John Smeaton, the Director of The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, has rightly called 'arguably the greatest advance in the culture of death...since the passage of the Abortion Act in 1967.'
"What Amendment 70 says is that a Catholic school may teach sex education 'in a way that reflects the school's religious character.' It is easy to see why many on both sides of the debate have been taken in. Surely 'in accordance with its religious character' means in accordance with the teaching of the Church?
"But that is not what it means. 'In accordance with its religious character' means only that a Catholic school may convey Church teaching in addition to the 'facts' about sex and sexuality decided upon by the Government.
"And what are these 'facts' which Catholic schools must convey? Ed Balls, the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, has been unambiguous. The 'facts' (in Mr Balls' own words) include 'how to access contraception [and] how to use contraception'; they include '[explaining] civil partnership' in a way which shows 'that there are different views on homosexuality' and which therefore doesn't 'teach homophobia'; and they include 'a balanced view on abortion, [giving] both sides of the argument, and [explaining] how to access an abortion.'
"We need to be absolutely clear. Although Catholic schools will be able to teach, if they choose, that contraception, homosexuality and abortion are wrong, they will also have to teach that there are different views on these subjects, what these views are and why they are held, explain to their pupils what a civil partnership is, and explain how to use contraception and where to 'access' it, and how and where to 'access' an abortion.
"So (under Amendment 70) the situation of Catholic schools, with regard to contraception, homosexuality and abortion, is as it would be if the Government were to say that, of course, schools can teach that racism is morally wrong; but were then to legislate that (in the interests of conveying a 'balanced' account of 'the 'facts') schools also had to explain why racism can be thought morally acceptable, and inform children about where they can 'access' racist literature, attend racist meetings, join a racist political party and how to put racism into practice on the streets.
"Could any teacher convinced that racism is morally wrong be induced to deliver such a curriculum? Why would he or she want even to try? Government imposition of such a curriculum would demand conscientious civil disobedience. And yet a precisely analogous imposition is being made upon Catholic teachers in the area of sex and relationships.
"What's the difference? Only this: that whereas the vast majority (rightly) believe that racism is wrong (or for that matter paedophilia, or torture, or cruelty to animals – the argument is the same, whichever near-unanimous conviction you chose), only the Catholic Church also teaches, clearly and consistently, the wrongness of contraception, homosexuality and abortion. What is at stake is her right, in her own schools, to continue to do so, free from State censorship and control.
"If Amendment 70 really is an attempt to win the Catholic vote, Catholics will soon have an opportunity, and indeed a duty, to demonstrate that it has failed."
To put it bluntly: Are the three Birmingham Oratorians being silenced because of their principled opposition to the scandalous position which has been adopted by the Catholic bishops' conference of England and Wales on sex and relationships education - particularly at a time of unprecedented focus on the Birmingham Oratory, the spiritual home of Cardinal Newman and his impending beatification during Pope Benedict's visit to Britain in September?
Dr Tom Ward, the president of the National Association of Catholic Families, informs me that parishioners of Birmingham Oratory and members of the NACF have written to Father Richard Duffield, current Provost of the Birmingham Oratory. They have asked whether Father Dermot Fenlon, Father Philip Cleevely and Brother Lewis Berry will be returning to the Birmingham Oratory or not. This question was put unequivocally and an unequivocal answer was requested.
I hear that Fr Duffield "assumes" that the two priests and the brother concerned will be returning to the Oratory, but that the matter is not in his hands. It is being dealt with by the Father Visitor and his delegate who in their turn are acting as officials of the Congregation for Religious in Rome. Tom tells me that parishioners will now be asking Father Duffield to seek clarification and an unequivocal answer to the question from whatever sources are necessary. The parishioners say:
"In the run up to the Beautification of Cardinal Newman, the parishioners of the Birmingham Oratory need all the spiritual support they can get and a swift end to the damaging insinuations against three good and holy men which will continue as long as their mysterious disappearance remains completely unaccounted for. Those of us who are parents are in a particularly difficult position as we strive to protect our children from what is a steadily increasing scandal in the Catholic Church in the British Isles. Father Dermot Fenlon, Father Philip Cleevely and Brother Lewis Berry must be returned to us and to our families forthwith: we believe they are innocent of any wrong doing."
The scandal of the Catholic bishops' betrayal of Catholic families in the matter of sex and relationships education - and in particular the access being facilitated for children in schools to abortion and birth control services, without parental knowledge or consent - is very great indeed. The apparent silencing of these three Oratorians of Cardinal Newman's Birmingham Oratory - so outspoken in defence of life and in defence of our families - seems to me to stink to high heaven.
www.spuc-director.blogspot.com
James Preece of Catholic and Loving it has published a fascinating post today about the battle over Cardinal Newman's legacy. He writes about the mysterious disappearance from Birmingham Oratory (pictured) of Fr Dermot Fenlon, Fr Philip Cleevely and Brother Lewis Berry - three Oratorians who have been publicly opposing an interpretation of Newman as the patron of ‘conscientious’ dissent; and three Oratorians who have publicly opposed the sex and relationships education policies of the last Government and of the Catholic bishops' conference of England and Wales.
The National Association of Catholic Families informs us that Father Fenlon and Father Cleevely, and Brother Lewis have been ordered to three separate monasteries hundreds of miles apart, with no public explanation, and no word as to when they can be expected back.
These three Oratorians were, to my knowledge, responsible, for a powerful critique of The Tablet's placing of "Newman and conscience in the company of Tony Blair", calling it "a provocative juxtaposition".
The official website of Birmingham Oratory said last October:
"Mr Blair’s conduct as a Member of Parliament and Prime Minister is a matter of public record. There can be no question that during his Parliamentary career, before his reception into the Catholic Church, he advocated and voted for legislation which, among other things, permitted destructive experimentation and other lethal attacks upon human beings at their most vulnerable, and which significantly furthered cultural hostility towards the Sacrament of Matrimony, family life and the proper care of children in need.
"Since becoming a Catholic, Mr Blair has refused every invitation to disown and repent of these things. Although they are simply incompatible with the Catholic Faith and were pursued by him, before he was a Catholic, with every appearance of conviction, Mr Blair has refused since entering the Church to say whether in these respects he has undergone a change of mind and heart. In refusing to clarify his position, he implies that he still believes that they were the right things to do.
"If this implication is correct, some commentators, including Catholics, have sought to justify it by saying that Mr Blair’s silence is because his support for abortion, embryo experimentation, civil partnerships and gay adoption has always been for him, and remains now, a matter of conscience. Now this is the danger in The Tablet’s association of Newman and conscience with the case of Tony Blair. If as a Catholic Mr Blair thinks that his conscience directs him to support such positions, to invoke Newman in defence of his stance would be a travesty. For Newman, no Catholic can be in good conscience in supporting the positions Mr Blair espoused. The impossibility of conscience, enlightened by Faith, justifying adherence to evil is one of the most important of Newman’s lessons for our times."
In this connection, I don't know if there's any truth in the Telegraph's report that Labour’s favourite events management company has been employed by the Church along with a former aide to Tony Blair to help in organizing Pope Benedict's visit to Britain in September, a visit which includes the beatification of Cardinal Newman. And, of course, even if the Telegraph report is true, this would not lead to the inevitable conclusion that there's a connection between the disappearance of the three Oratorians and their powerful dismissal of The Tablet’s association of Newman and conscience with the case of Tony Blair.
However, I understand it was these three Oratorians who also set out so eloquently the case against the Catholic Education Service's support (and, one might add, Bishop McMahon's support and Archbishop Vincent Nichols's support) for the Labour government's plans to make sex and relationships education compulsory in all State schools in England between the ages of five and sixteen.
It's worth recalling what was said in the Birmingham Oratory newsletter last March:
"Those in our society committed to a radical anti-Catholic agenda, as well as many 'ordinary' people with moral opinions formed more or less unconsciously by anti-Catholic forces, greeted the Government's recent 'concessions' regarding school-based sex education ('Amendment 70') as a climb-down, cynically designed to appease the Church and attract Catholic votes in the General Election. Others, predictably, have hailed the Amendment as a victory for the Church, enabling Catholic schools to continue to uphold her teachings in the sensitive and profoundly important area of human relationships and sexuality.
"Both sides are mistaken. On none of the key issues was there a Government 'climb-down', and in none of them any kind of 'victory' for the Church. Anti-Catholic forces have nothing to fear from Amendment 70. The Catholic Church in England and Wales, by contrast, faces what John Smeaton, the Director of The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, has rightly called 'arguably the greatest advance in the culture of death...since the passage of the Abortion Act in 1967.'
"What Amendment 70 says is that a Catholic school may teach sex education 'in a way that reflects the school's religious character.' It is easy to see why many on both sides of the debate have been taken in. Surely 'in accordance with its religious character' means in accordance with the teaching of the Church?
"But that is not what it means. 'In accordance with its religious character' means only that a Catholic school may convey Church teaching in addition to the 'facts' about sex and sexuality decided upon by the Government.
"And what are these 'facts' which Catholic schools must convey? Ed Balls, the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, has been unambiguous. The 'facts' (in Mr Balls' own words) include 'how to access contraception [and] how to use contraception'; they include '[explaining] civil partnership' in a way which shows 'that there are different views on homosexuality' and which therefore doesn't 'teach homophobia'; and they include 'a balanced view on abortion, [giving] both sides of the argument, and [explaining] how to access an abortion.'
"We need to be absolutely clear. Although Catholic schools will be able to teach, if they choose, that contraception, homosexuality and abortion are wrong, they will also have to teach that there are different views on these subjects, what these views are and why they are held, explain to their pupils what a civil partnership is, and explain how to use contraception and where to 'access' it, and how and where to 'access' an abortion.
"So (under Amendment 70) the situation of Catholic schools, with regard to contraception, homosexuality and abortion, is as it would be if the Government were to say that, of course, schools can teach that racism is morally wrong; but were then to legislate that (in the interests of conveying a 'balanced' account of 'the 'facts') schools also had to explain why racism can be thought morally acceptable, and inform children about where they can 'access' racist literature, attend racist meetings, join a racist political party and how to put racism into practice on the streets.
"Could any teacher convinced that racism is morally wrong be induced to deliver such a curriculum? Why would he or she want even to try? Government imposition of such a curriculum would demand conscientious civil disobedience. And yet a precisely analogous imposition is being made upon Catholic teachers in the area of sex and relationships.
"What's the difference? Only this: that whereas the vast majority (rightly) believe that racism is wrong (or for that matter paedophilia, or torture, or cruelty to animals – the argument is the same, whichever near-unanimous conviction you chose), only the Catholic Church also teaches, clearly and consistently, the wrongness of contraception, homosexuality and abortion. What is at stake is her right, in her own schools, to continue to do so, free from State censorship and control.
"If Amendment 70 really is an attempt to win the Catholic vote, Catholics will soon have an opportunity, and indeed a duty, to demonstrate that it has failed."
To put it bluntly: Are the three Birmingham Oratorians being silenced because of their principled opposition to the scandalous position which has been adopted by the Catholic bishops' conference of England and Wales on sex and relationships education - particularly at a time of unprecedented focus on the Birmingham Oratory, the spiritual home of Cardinal Newman and his impending beatification during Pope Benedict's visit to Britain in September?
Dr Tom Ward, the president of the National Association of Catholic Families, informs me that parishioners of Birmingham Oratory and members of the NACF have written to Father Richard Duffield, current Provost of the Birmingham Oratory. They have asked whether Father Dermot Fenlon, Father Philip Cleevely and Brother Lewis Berry will be returning to the Birmingham Oratory or not. This question was put unequivocally and an unequivocal answer was requested.
I hear that Fr Duffield "assumes" that the two priests and the brother concerned will be returning to the Oratory, but that the matter is not in his hands. It is being dealt with by the Father Visitor and his delegate who in their turn are acting as officials of the Congregation for Religious in Rome. Tom tells me that parishioners will now be asking Father Duffield to seek clarification and an unequivocal answer to the question from whatever sources are necessary. The parishioners say:
"In the run up to the Beautification of Cardinal Newman, the parishioners of the Birmingham Oratory need all the spiritual support they can get and a swift end to the damaging insinuations against three good and holy men which will continue as long as their mysterious disappearance remains completely unaccounted for. Those of us who are parents are in a particularly difficult position as we strive to protect our children from what is a steadily increasing scandal in the Catholic Church in the British Isles. Father Dermot Fenlon, Father Philip Cleevely and Brother Lewis Berry must be returned to us and to our families forthwith: we believe they are innocent of any wrong doing."
The scandal of the Catholic bishops' betrayal of Catholic families in the matter of sex and relationships education - and in particular the access being facilitated for children in schools to abortion and birth control services, without parental knowledge or consent - is very great indeed. The apparent silencing of these three Oratorians of Cardinal Newman's Birmingham Oratory - so outspoken in defence of life and in defence of our families - seems to me to stink to high heaven.
"Fighting for the real Cardinal Newman"
Catholic and Loving It - James Preece on 7.6.2010
www.lovingit.co.uk
Fighting for the real Cardinal Newman
Ever played capture the flag? It's a great game. Two teams attempt to capture the opposing team's flag while trying not to lose their own. There's a lot of running, dodging and sneaking. If you play too defensively then you have no chance of catching the other team's flag, but if you all go running after the other team's flag then you will probably lose your own. The key to winning is good teamwork, strategy, a bit of misdirection and somebody who can run really fast.
The Catholic Church in England and Wales is currently engaged in an international game of capture the flag of epic proportions.
Cardinal John Henry Newman is the flag.
For one side, Cardinal Newman is the champion of Catholic tradition. His view of the development of Christian doctrine stands hand in hand with Pope Benedict's vision of a Hermeneutic of Continuity. A single continuous Church the past. For this side, the Beatification of Newman is a rallying cry, a call to arms, an opportunity for renewal and evangelisation. The visit of Pope Benedict to the United Kingdom will show young Catholics a world beyond the stodgy Bishops Conference of England and Wales and give the Catholic population the confidence to fight encroaching secularism.
For the other side, Cardinal Newman is the first gay saint. He is a champion of conscience and doing your own thing. His views on the development of Christian doctrine show that the Church can and should change with the times. For this side, the beatification of Newman is an opportunity to promote the idea that religious dogma is transient and to highlight the hypocrisy of those who would call homosexual acts sinful while beatifying a man who was gay himself. It is a victory for modern progressive thought, for compromise and inclusivity, it is another stride towards an open all inclusive Church where anybody can join and nobody has to believe anything (except inclusivity).
It is not difficult to know which side is right. Newman was no more a homosexual because he loved his close friend than I am a pedophile because I love my daughter. It may surprise some of you to discover this, but it is actually possible to love somebody very dearly without wanting to have sex with them. Newman's vision of the development of Christian doctrine wasn't one of a Church jumping around from one view to the next with the spirit of the age, it was one of a Church developing like a building develops - each layer of bricks on top of and supported by the one below.
Unfortunately, unless you have been in a cave for the last few years you will not have much difficulty guessing who is on which side.
When the head of Marriage Care said that it made no difference to Children whether their parents were married or not he got no opposition from Archbishop Nichols because Archbishop Nichols is quite obviously on the let's have an open Church where anybody can join and nobody has to believe anything side. So is Cardinal Cormac. It's not just people inside the Church, there are plenty of other people keen for a Catholic Church which is compatible with all the latest New Labour ideals. Like Tony Blair who joined the Church so that he could, like his wife, work to change it from the inside...
Most of you will know that this is not an isolated incident, it is merely the latest skirmish in a war that has raged down the centuries.
In this particular skirmish we are vastly outnumbered and the other side are playing dirty.
Three of our guys just got put out of the game.
You see, while the Bishop's Conference were very carefully not saying anything because that's pretty much all they had to do in order to let the whole thing get taken over by secularists, an obstacle lay in their path. At some point in the visit all eyes were going to be laid on the Birmingham Oratory. The religious community that Newman himself founded. The men of that Oratory were going to have an opportunity to speak quite publicly and they were on our side.
I even got an email from one of them last year - Brother Lewis Berry, asking me to help him promote the Newman Cause website. He spoke quite frankly saying "we'll appreciate whenever you can post on our things, as it's important to promote an authentic interpretation of Newman, especially when there are other interpretations about".
Unfortunately, when you are three humble holy men standing in the path of Archbishop Nichols and his plan for an all encompassing Church where anybody and everybody can believe whatever they like (Terry Prendergast for example) then you tend to get squashed. I have a strong suspicion that the people who said "James Preece? Don't let him near Catholic Voices" are the same people as said "We need to do something about those people at the Birmingham Oratory".
So there was a visitation. The Oratory were leaned on internationally and a guy from Vienna was sent over with instructions to clear out anybody who might rock the boat and three holy men were "ordered to go on retreat – to monasteries hundreds of miles apart – and pray". Jack Valero was sent in by the Bishop's Conference to take over as media spokesman. He's now operating for the Bishops and controlling the public narrative on the Papal visit via Catholic Voices and the Oratory. I like Jack and I think he's a good guy but I also think he's incredibly loyal and would think it the right think to support the Bishop's Conference, even if he thought they were wrong on this one.
So that leaves us with two things we must do. First, we need to keep hammering on about the three exiled brothers until they are returned. They are good and holy men and sending them away to pray indefinitely with no explanation is a terribly slight on their characters. It's the ecclesiastical equivalent of accusing them of rape. Jack Valero told me by email that "the reason no further explanation has been given is that the matters involved are private and do not involve any wrong-doing" yet one has to wonder, if there is no wrong-doing, why send three men away to separate monasteries and instruct them to maintain secrecy?
Of course, we know that there was wrong doing. What these men did wrong was to stand up for an authentic interpretation of Newman which is why the second thing we need to do is this: We need to promote the authentic interpretation as much as possible. We need to tell anybody and everybody who will listen that Newman is not the first gay saint and a champion of progressive thought but a man who believed that the Christian beliefs of today must be firmly rooted in the Christian beliefs of yesterday.
Oh, and pray. Because this is going to get dirtier and at some point they are going to make their play against Pope Benedict himself.
www.lovingit.co.uk
Fighting for the real Cardinal Newman
Ever played capture the flag? It's a great game. Two teams attempt to capture the opposing team's flag while trying not to lose their own. There's a lot of running, dodging and sneaking. If you play too defensively then you have no chance of catching the other team's flag, but if you all go running after the other team's flag then you will probably lose your own. The key to winning is good teamwork, strategy, a bit of misdirection and somebody who can run really fast.
The Catholic Church in England and Wales is currently engaged in an international game of capture the flag of epic proportions.
Cardinal John Henry Newman is the flag.
For one side, Cardinal Newman is the champion of Catholic tradition. His view of the development of Christian doctrine stands hand in hand with Pope Benedict's vision of a Hermeneutic of Continuity. A single continuous Church the past. For this side, the Beatification of Newman is a rallying cry, a call to arms, an opportunity for renewal and evangelisation. The visit of Pope Benedict to the United Kingdom will show young Catholics a world beyond the stodgy Bishops Conference of England and Wales and give the Catholic population the confidence to fight encroaching secularism.
For the other side, Cardinal Newman is the first gay saint. He is a champion of conscience and doing your own thing. His views on the development of Christian doctrine show that the Church can and should change with the times. For this side, the beatification of Newman is an opportunity to promote the idea that religious dogma is transient and to highlight the hypocrisy of those who would call homosexual acts sinful while beatifying a man who was gay himself. It is a victory for modern progressive thought, for compromise and inclusivity, it is another stride towards an open all inclusive Church where anybody can join and nobody has to believe anything (except inclusivity).
It is not difficult to know which side is right. Newman was no more a homosexual because he loved his close friend than I am a pedophile because I love my daughter. It may surprise some of you to discover this, but it is actually possible to love somebody very dearly without wanting to have sex with them. Newman's vision of the development of Christian doctrine wasn't one of a Church jumping around from one view to the next with the spirit of the age, it was one of a Church developing like a building develops - each layer of bricks on top of and supported by the one below.
Unfortunately, unless you have been in a cave for the last few years you will not have much difficulty guessing who is on which side.
When the head of Marriage Care said that it made no difference to Children whether their parents were married or not he got no opposition from Archbishop Nichols because Archbishop Nichols is quite obviously on the let's have an open Church where anybody can join and nobody has to believe anything side. So is Cardinal Cormac. It's not just people inside the Church, there are plenty of other people keen for a Catholic Church which is compatible with all the latest New Labour ideals. Like Tony Blair who joined the Church so that he could, like his wife, work to change it from the inside...
Most of you will know that this is not an isolated incident, it is merely the latest skirmish in a war that has raged down the centuries.
In this particular skirmish we are vastly outnumbered and the other side are playing dirty.
Three of our guys just got put out of the game.
You see, while the Bishop's Conference were very carefully not saying anything because that's pretty much all they had to do in order to let the whole thing get taken over by secularists, an obstacle lay in their path. At some point in the visit all eyes were going to be laid on the Birmingham Oratory. The religious community that Newman himself founded. The men of that Oratory were going to have an opportunity to speak quite publicly and they were on our side.
I even got an email from one of them last year - Brother Lewis Berry, asking me to help him promote the Newman Cause website. He spoke quite frankly saying "we'll appreciate whenever you can post on our things, as it's important to promote an authentic interpretation of Newman, especially when there are other interpretations about".
Unfortunately, when you are three humble holy men standing in the path of Archbishop Nichols and his plan for an all encompassing Church where anybody and everybody can believe whatever they like (Terry Prendergast for example) then you tend to get squashed. I have a strong suspicion that the people who said "James Preece? Don't let him near Catholic Voices" are the same people as said "We need to do something about those people at the Birmingham Oratory".
So there was a visitation. The Oratory were leaned on internationally and a guy from Vienna was sent over with instructions to clear out anybody who might rock the boat and three holy men were "ordered to go on retreat – to monasteries hundreds of miles apart – and pray". Jack Valero was sent in by the Bishop's Conference to take over as media spokesman. He's now operating for the Bishops and controlling the public narrative on the Papal visit via Catholic Voices and the Oratory. I like Jack and I think he's a good guy but I also think he's incredibly loyal and would think it the right think to support the Bishop's Conference, even if he thought they were wrong on this one.
So that leaves us with two things we must do. First, we need to keep hammering on about the three exiled brothers until they are returned. They are good and holy men and sending them away to pray indefinitely with no explanation is a terribly slight on their characters. It's the ecclesiastical equivalent of accusing them of rape. Jack Valero told me by email that "the reason no further explanation has been given is that the matters involved are private and do not involve any wrong-doing" yet one has to wonder, if there is no wrong-doing, why send three men away to separate monasteries and instruct them to maintain secrecy?
Of course, we know that there was wrong doing. What these men did wrong was to stand up for an authentic interpretation of Newman which is why the second thing we need to do is this: We need to promote the authentic interpretation as much as possible. We need to tell anybody and everybody who will listen that Newman is not the first gay saint and a champion of progressive thought but a man who believed that the Christian beliefs of today must be firmly rooted in the Christian beliefs of yesterday.
Oh, and pray. Because this is going to get dirtier and at some point they are going to make their play against Pope Benedict himself.
New venue announced for Newman beatification
Article from the Catholic Herald on 1.7.2010 by Anna Arco.
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2010/07/01/new-venue-announced-for-newman-beatification/
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2010/07/01/new-venue-announced-for-newman-beatification/
"Birmingham Oratory in dispute over provost’s ‘chaste’ relationship"
Article from The Times on 21.5.2010 by Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7132493.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7132493.ece
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)