Silence about the Birmingham Three endangers other "good and holy men"

Friday, 13 May 2011

John Smeaton - 13.5.2011
http://spuc-director.blogspot.com/2011/05/silence-about-birmingham-three.html
I have long referred on this blog to the co-operation between the Catholic authorities in England and Wales and the Government in its attack on families, on parents as the primary educators of their children, on the innocence and welfare of schoolchildren, and on the sanctity of human life.

Things could not be more serious: and still those episcopal policies, such as lending support to the previous government's legislative proposals which would have facilitated the corruption of our children, remain in force, not least through the continued employment of Greg Pope at the Catholic Education Service (see below).

This evening, on the first anniversary of the expulsion of three "good and holy men" from the Birmingham Oratory, I find myself wondering whether the Birmingham Three, their confreres, and even those apparently acting in authority over them, are all, somewhere along the ecclesiastical line, perhaps unwitting instruments of this policy of co-operation between State and Church - at the expense of the lives of unborn children, of marriage and the family.

Let's look at some of the past year's events:

We had the story in The Times a year ago with its hints of alleged homophobia - re-cycled by A Reluctant Sinner.

Importantly, we had the unequivocal confirmation from a Birmingham Oratory spokesman that the three Oratorians were "entirely guiltless of any wrong-doing whatsoever, including, specifically, sexual misdemeanours or homophobia".

Equally importantly, however, they remain in exile, in spite of assurances from a Birmingham Oratory spokesman in June 2010 that the Three "can come back soon and continue as normal"

Mud sticks. And since their exile we've had Archbishop Nichols undermining Pope Benedict's teaching on gay unions*, just the day after His Holiness returned from England to Rome.

Before their exile, the Birmingham Oratory website was boldly denouncing the previous government's legislative proposals which would have enabled the promotion and facilitation of abortion, contraception and homosexuality in schools, including Catholic schools. These shocking proposals - fortunately defeated following a strong campaign by SPUC, Catholic clergy, head teachers and school governors and three Catholic bishops - were painted in a good light by Archbishop Vincent Nichols.

And Archbishop Nichols has continued to back the appointment of Greg Pope, the anti-life, anti-family former Member of Parliament as deputy director of the Catholic Education Service as does Bishop McMahon, Archbishop Nichols's successor as chairman of the Catholic Education Service of England and Wales (CESEW).

Many Catholic clergy, three Catholic bishops, and others put up a brave fight against the policy of the bishops' conference of England and Wales on the Children Schools and Families bill - and not least through their courage - we won that campaign.

But silence about the unjust fate of the Birmingham Three - with the exception of lay bloggers - exposes those churchmen and churchwomen who dare to speak out boldly about the wickedness of episcopal policies to a similar fate; and it leaves families, children, parents and unborn children to the tender mercies of the realpolitik of the bishops' conference of England and Wales. God help us.

In a fascinating interview about the Birmingham Three Dr Tom Ward is asked about the silence of the Catholic clergy in publicly challenging what happened.

Dr Ward, a corresponding member of the Pontifical Academy for Life, says:

"Good priests are busy men and there was a great deal of disinformation in the media. This disinformation caused confusion in spite of the valiant efforts of individual lay people to get the truth through ... This was one reason for the clerical silence.

"The other reason was much more worrying. The penalties that the three Oratorians had suffered were draconian and it was universally agreed that they are virtuous men who are innocent of any wrong doing. For example, on May 26, 2010 their brother Oratorian and their then Provost, Fr. Duffield said in reply to a letter: 'I agree with what you say about Fathers Dermot, Philip and Lewis and with the specific examples you give of their virtues. All three have been my friends for many years. They have not done anything wrong" and the matters involved are private and "do not involve any wrong-doing'. In a letter to an enquirer (June 5, 2010) the spokesman of the Oratory wrote : 'These good and holy men have led exemplary lives and offered wonderful pastoral care to the parishioners of the Oratory'.
"As I said the other reason for the silence of the priests was more worrying. It was fear. Having seen what happened to the Oratorians they wondered what might to happen to them if they too were outspoken."

Quite so Dr Ward.
*Pope John Paul II, the great pro-life champion, teaches in paragraph 97 of Evangelium Vitae that it is an illusion to think that we can build a true culture of human life if we do not offer adolescents and young adults an authentic education in sexuality, and in love, and the whole of life according to their true meaning and in their close interconnection.

What has Constantinople to do with Birmingham

from The Noise of the Crusade blog - 27.1.2011

http://www.thenoiseofthecrusade.com/?p=99

... On a matter quite unrelated, it is now 259 days since Father Dermot Fenlon was forced to leave his home at the Birmingham Oratory on grounds that are yet to be satisfactorily explained by those responsible. Together with Father Philip Cleevely and Brother Lewis Berry, he is one of the three to whom this website is devoted: it is recommended to those seeking a full account of this scandal, as are the observations of James Preece and John Smeaton. Suffice it to note here that Ecclestone Square’s official spokesman Jack Valero (of “Catholic Voices” – who else?) has variously claimed that Father Dermot (a) “can come back soon” (June 2010); (b) is “entirely guiltless of any wrong-doing whatsoever” (August 2010); (c) was exclaustrated for “pride, anger, disobedience, disunity, nastiness, dissension, the breakdown of charity” (also August 2010). For reasons which will be given, it is submitted that the significance of this last remark is to be found in the fact that the “nastiness” and “dissention” is not alleged to have been directed to other members of the community. Readers will be invited to view this remark as an example of the tendency of establishment liberals to tar defenders of orthodoxy as boat-rockers.

On 21 December 2007, Anthony Blair apparently converted to the Catholic Faith. “Apparently”, because he has publicly dissented from the Magisterium since then, for example on 8 April 2009, when he told the Pope to rethink the Church’s teaching on sodomy. On 15 September 2010 L’Osservatore Romano carried an article by Blair in which he sought to co-opt Newman’s teaching on conscience and the sensus fidelium to the cause of dissent. As John Smeaton observed at the time, (1) the publication of the article was shortly preceded by the announcement of the Birmingham Three’s exclaustration, (2) Father Dermot is “one of the world’s leading expert defenders of Newman’s legacy”, and (3) “since the removal of … the Birmingham Three the Newman Cause blog has had no substantial articles”. It has now disappeared altogether. While the Birmingham Three were at the Oratory together, several articles critical of Tony and Cherie Blair and directly related to the authentic interpretation of Newman appeared on the Newman Cause blog. For example:

“Since becoming a Catholic, Mr Blair has refused every invitation to disown and repent of [his anti-life/anti-family political record]… [S]ome 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.” (October 2009: h/t John Smeaton)

Or this, published on 27 November 2009, concerning Deacon Jack Sullivan’s request that the Times remove from its website an article about a visit to Cherie Blair, which was sprung on him by some PR guy in the pay of a bishop:

“Unfortunately, Jack had not been made aware of Mrs Blair’s public opposition to the teaching of the Church. He undertook the visit in good faith, believing Mrs Blair to be simply a prominent Catholic. … 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 practise dissent from the Church’s teaching. The decision to arrange Jack’s visit to Mrs Blair, and then to publicise it under Jack’s name, has not contributed to upholding a true interpretation either of Newman, or of Cherie Blair.”

If one was to think that the exile of the Birmingham Three, and Father Dermot in particular, was a manoeuvre in a wider campaign to appropriate the thought of Newman to the cause of liberal dissent by removing prominent critics of those who hold court at the heart of Relativism’s Dictatorship, then it is the humble opinion of this commentator that one would not be far off the mark.

Vatican newspaper helps Tony Blair steal Newman's legacy

John Smeaton's Blog - 15.9.2010
http://www.spuc-director.org.uk/

L'Osservatore Romano, the semi-official Vatican newspaper, has today published an article by Tony Blair entitled "The Pope and Newman". The "Whispers in the Loggia" blog has published its own English translation of the Italian edition. Here is the key content from the article:

• It's evident that for the life of the Church today, the reflections of Newman on the development of ideas have implications of no small significance."
•  " ... Newman defined the consensus of the entire 'body of the faithful' on doctrinal questions as 'the voice of the infallible Church.' I ask myself if this voice is likewise taken seriously enough or if we have we have understood fully the implications of these ideas. The tendency of some religious leaders to insert a great number of differing ideas in one big package with the label of 'secularism' and then consider it as something of the Left creates divisions in pluralist societies. This precludes the Church from possibilities of new developments of thought."
• "Newman, like Pope Benedict, himself fierily opposed relativism. But the interreligious activity of my Faith Foundation produces the opposite of relativism, confirms people in their different faiths, and maintains respect and understanding for the faith of others."

Elsewhere in the article Mr Blair pays lip-service to the role of the Church's Magisterium (teaching authority). In this Mr Blair is clearly attempting to fool Catholics into viewing him as a moderate conservative, one who acknowledges the Church's teaching authority whilst being open to modern developments. Anyone inclined to believe Mr Blair can simply read his newly-published memoirs, in which he says:

"Politicians are obliged from time to time to conceal the full truth, to bend it and even distort it".


The truth is that Mr Blair is cleverly abusing the nuances of Newman's opinions on the primacy of conscience and on the development of doctrine. Mr Blair is trying to steal Newman's clothing in order to leverage a change to Catholic teaching on homosexuality (and no doubt on other pro-life/pro-family issues). In April last year Mr Blair told the gay magazine Attitude that the Catholic Church must change its "entrenched attitudes to homosexuality".

As Monsignor Michel Schooyans, one of the Vatican's leading scholars, has pointed out in a masterly analysis, Mr Blair, with an anti-life, anti-family agenda, is in fact seeking to undermine the Catholic faith and religion generally:

"The fresh 'convert' [Blair] does not hesitate to explain to the pope not only what he must do, but also what he must believe! ... So now we are back in the time of Hobbes, if not of Cromwell: it is civil power that defines what one must believe ... [T]he nanny state [which] has multiplied subjective 'rights' of attribution, for example in the areas of divorce, sexuality, the family, population, etc. ... Religious institutions must also be reformed to adapt them to the changes. Some religious figures must be taken hostage and made to approve the new secularized 'faith', that of the 'civil partnership' ... In the case of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation [JS: see my blog about it], this is also a matter of promoting one and only one religious confession, which a universal, global political power would impose on the entire world".

Mr Blair has been ably assisted in his assault upon Catholic teaching by his wife Cherie (pictured) and her vocal campaigns in favour of contraception and leading pro-abortion organisations.

I am disgusted by L'Osservatore Romano's decision to give such prominence to Mr Blair and his manipulative agenda.This is not the first time that the newspaper L'Osservatore Romano has betrayed the pro-life movement. In September last year it published an effusive double-page spread interview with Mr Blair; and earlier in 2009 it published articles favourable to Barack Obama, with the editor even declaring that "Obama is not a pro-abortion president".

To my mind it is no coincidence that Tony Blair's shameful attempted theft of Newman's legacy follows so soon after Fr Dermot Fenlon, one of the world's leading expert defenders of Newman's authentic legacy, has been sentenced to five years' exile from his home, Newman's Birmingham Oratory. Fr Fenlon, along with the other Birmingham Oratorians, were at the forefront of warning Catholics about the Blairs' agenda. As the Newman Cause blog said in November:

"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 ..."

And as the Newman cause blog said in October:

"Since becoming a Catholic, Mr Blair has refused every invitation [JS: see my blog about this] to disown and repent of [his anti-life/anti-family political record] ... [S]ome 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."

Since the removal of Fr Fenlon and the Birmingham Three from the Oratory, the Newman Cause blog has had no substantial articles (in fact, the blog stopped altogether in July); and the posts on the Oratory website (12 March, 20 March) which so powerfully challenged episcopal policies on abortion and sex education have also stopped. The ending of these articles coincided with the parachuting in of Jack Valero by the Catholic bishops' conference of England and Wales to be press officer for the Newman Cause and who reports to Archbishop Nichols's press secretary.
 
Yesterday's edition of Zenit contains an extraordinary interview with Andrea Tornielli, a noted Vatican watcher. Here is a key extract:


Zenit: According to the Archbishop Giampaolo Crepaldi of Trieste, there exists a parallel magisterium among ecclesiastics, professors of theology in the seminaries, priests and laypeople who "muffle Benedict XVI's teachings, do not read the documents of his magisterium, write and speak arguing exactly the opposite of what he says, launch pastoral and cultural initiatives, on the terrain of bioethics or in ecumenical dialogue, for example, in open divergence with what he teaches." Is this true or is Archbishop Crepaldi mistaken?
Tornielli: I believe that Archbishop Crepaldi is right. It is obvious -- just take a look at many parishes, participate at conferences, cultural gatherings, etc., and you will see how Benedict XVI's magisterium (but this happened before too, with other Popes) is not transmitted to the faithful, but is instead sometimes openly contradicted.

I wrote in June:


"Could it be that external forces [JS: outside the Birmingham Oratory but inside the Church] who want a Catholic Church which is inclusive of the Blairs' anti-life, anti-family positions are bringing pressures to bear in [the Birmingham Three] 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?"

It seems to me that the Blairs, Archbishop Nichols and the Catholic bishops' conference of which he is president are key players in this "parallel magisterium". (Jack Valero, in his bishops' conference role, has even denied the very existence of such a "parallel magisterium"). Ownership of the interpretation of Newman is one of the "parallel magisterium's" key goals. It would suit the purposes of the "parallel magisterium" to move to divide and conquer at the Birmingham Oratory, especially targeting Fr Dermot Fenlon, the champion of the true Magisterium's authentic interpretation of Newman's legacy.
Concerned readers of this blog are therefore heartily urged to join the faithful Newman experts who are standing up for Fr Fenlon: Dr Roman Siebenrock of the German International Newman Society, and Jakob and Dr Stephanie Maria Knab.

Birmingham Three - still as clear as mud

Catholic & Loving It! Blog - Lovingit Locums - 11.9.2010
http://www.lovingit.co.uk/

See John Smeaton's blog for the most recent developments.


An innocent man of 68 has been expelled from his home for a minimum of 5 years.

This is a cruel and unusual punishment but for what?

Both Br Lewis Berry and Fr Philip Cleevely asked for Fr Felix Selden and others to be left alone. Well, that's exactly what is not going to happen. Fr Felix Selden & co have failed at every step to provide any answers.

Attempts by Fr Felix Selden & co to retreat behind this being 'a private internal matter' are fundamentally undermined by it having been them, through their ubiquitous spokesman, who leaked this story to the Tablet in the first place.

Fr Felix Selden, Fr Ignatius Harrison, Fr Gareth Jones and Mr Valero we do not believe you at all.

Until the truth comes out we will continue to ask questions. And, be assured, the truth will come out.

Innocent Fr Fenlon has been sentenced to five years' exile from the Birmingham Oratory

John Smeaton's Blog - 10.9.2010
http://www.spuc-director.blogspot.com/


According to a report in this weekend's Catholic Herald, Fr Dermot Fenlon, one of the Birmingham Three, has been sentenced to five years' exile from the Birmingham Oratory. Here are some key quotes from the report:


•"[Fr Fenlon] has been effectively expelled from his community."


•"Sources close to the Oratory have told The Catholic Herald that Fr Fenlon, 68, is now in the process of being "forcibly exclaustrated" for at least five years, when he will be 74, because he is objecting to the way he is being treated."

•"Yet no figure has publicly given any reason why Fr Fenlon has been subject to such severe canonical penalties in the first place."

•"[A]uthorities then offered to treat the [Birmingham T]hree leniently as long as they accept a period of exile, agree to statements distancing themselves from criticism of the way they have been treated and drop any appeals they had lodged against [Fr Felix Selden's] visitation [of the Birmingham Oratory]."

•"The move to censure him may shock worshippers in Birmingham who know Fr Fenlon for his piety and his loyalty to the teachings of the Church."
 
In the light of this report, I therefore have a number of questions to put to Jack Valero, spokesman for the Birmingham Oratory, who has also been appointed by the Catholic bishops' conference of England and Wales as spokesman for the beatification of the Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman:
 
•Why has Fr Fenlon been exclaustrated if, as you wrote in The Catholic Herald of 27 August, he is a "priest in good standing"?


•Why did you say, first that Fr Fenlon and the other Two were "entirely guiltless of any wrongdoing whatsoever", and then later declare them guilty of "pride, anger, disobedience, disunity, nastiness, dissension, the breakdown of charity"?

•Why did you say in June that the Three "can come back soon and continue as normal" when the Three have now been sent away from the Oratory for periods ranging from at least one to up to five years?

•Were the sending of Br Lewis Berry to the South African Oratory and of Fr Philip Cleevely to doctoral studies abroad concessions offered by the "authorities ... as long as they accept a period of exile, agree to statements distancing themselves from criticism of the way they have been treated and drop any appeals they had lodged against [Fr Felix Selden's] visitation [of the Birmingham Oratory]"?

•Why did you claim in The Catholic Herald of 27 August that "the disagreements which concerned the Visitor were not about Church teaching", whereas you are quoted in this weekend's Catholic Herald as saying that the removal of the Three from the Oratory was partly as a result of "doctrinal tensions"?

•Do you accept the Three's stance on government-led sex and relationships education was different from your employer's, the Catholic bishops' conference of England and Wales?

•Why have the posts on the Oratory website (12 March, 20 March) which so powerfully challenged episcopal policies on abortion and sex education stopped since the removal of the Three?

Jack Valero uses Blair-style tactics on Birmingham Three crisis

John Smeaton - 4.9.2010
http://www.spuc-director.blogspot.com/

I published a post earlier this week about The Journey, Tony Blair's memoirs, in which Blair admitted to:


"'bending and distorting' the truth as prime minister, but says a degree of manipulation and distortion are necessary to govern, and voters accept that. 'Politicians are obliged from time to time to conceal the full truth, to bend it and even distort it, where the interests of the bigger strategic goal demand it be done. Without operating with some subtlety at this level, the job would be well-nigh impossible.'"

Reading last week's Catholic Herald this morning I was struck by the mastery shown by Jack Valero (pictured), the spokesman for the Birmingham Oratory, of these Blair-style tactics in his article "The Birmingham Three protests harm the Church". Visitors will know that I have blogged a number of times about the Birmingham Oratory crisis caused by the sudden expulsion of three Oratorians from the Birmingham Oratory on the Catholic feast day of Our Lady of Fatima (May 13) this year.

Jack Valero says that the Birmingham Three campaign:

"has morphed into an attempt to drive a wedge between the so-called 'liberal' hierarchy and the 'orthodox' Oratorians by those who criticise the bishops for being too 'liberal'. As an orthodox Catholic I deplore this myth ... "

As a Catholic loyal to the magisterium of the Catholic church I deplore Jack Valero's shameful misrepresentation.

Catholic families in England and Wales are living under the yoke of a liberal hierarchy which pursues policies which are seriously harmful to the common good of Catholic families and non-Catholic families alike, for example:

• helping the government to promote abortion amongst schoolchildren under the age of consent, without parental knowledge or consent,
• the openness of Bishop Malcolm McMahon, the current Catholic Education Service chairman, to headteachers being in same-sex unions*
• Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Westminster making clear his support for the prevailing government ideology on sex and relationships education, and defending the Catholic Education Service's appointment of Greg Pope, a former Labour MP with a lengthy anti-life/anti-family record
• and Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Westminster failing to rule out the Catholic church sanctioning gay unions in the future

It's well-known that the three Oratorians suddenly expelled from the Oratory last May publicly opposed all such policies. It's also well-known, as I've mentioned before, that all the Birmingham Oratorians stood wholeheartedly behind this stand on pro-life issues. At the same time, the pro-life posts on the Birmingham Oratory website which so powerfully challenged episcopal policies on abortion and sex education have stopped since the sudden expulsion of the Birmingham Three.

There's a lot more to say about Jack Valero's article but there's no hurry. After all the Birmingham Three won't be coming back to the Birmingham Oratory "soon" as Jack Valero said on BBC radio West Midlands two months ago. No, they "are travelling the world, working as priests in good standing ... praying in monasteries, studying, writing, taking holidays, visiting friends and deepening their formation ... " as Jack now tells us in his Blair-style piece in the Catholic Herald.

* The late Pope John Paul II, the great pro-life champion, taught in paragraph 97 of his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae that it is an illusion to think that we can build a true culture of human life if we do not offer adolescents and young adults an authentic education in sexuality, and in love, and the whole of life according to their true meaning and in their close interconnection.