No Mass this Christmas Lord?

An extraordinary infant surely
deserves an extraordinary Mass?

My thanks to the Latin Mass Society's General Manager, Mike Lord, for putting up a listing of Christmas Masses on the LMS website HERE.

But the "Lord" I refer to in my heading is, in fact, the good Lord (not to infer that Mike Lord is anything but good........ drat it, this is getting sticky).

And my query is really aimed at the Archdiocese of Westminster, capital of the Catholic Faith in England and Wales.

It is a small diocese, geographically, but massive in terms of population, number of priests and parishes.

Yet, between Christmas Eve and Christmas Day it only offers three Latin Masses and none of those are located in the Cathedral.
They are all, in fact, in Central London, not easy to get to if you have littlies in tow and have to travel some 30 miles or so.

The fact that a Latin Mass is not on offer at Westminster Cathedral is nothing short of scandalous.

If ever there is an occasion where the Extraordinary Form of Mass  is required rather than the Ordinary Form it is at Christmas and Easter.

Archbishop Vincent Nichols should be ashamed of his lack of leadership. The diocesan website carries a quote from His Grace as follows:-  

"To have eyes for the good things of the Lord is to live by Faith, to see life with the eyes of Faith"

That's almost as good as: "Who knows what's down the road"

BTW, my comments are distinctly my own and do not reflect the LMS position in any way.

While wild horses will not lead me to attend an OF Mass, small grandchildren will.

So I shall grit my teeth and just hope that there are no professional greeters on duty else I might resort to the Don Camillo option, a rather different form of the kiss of peace.

Look, you're Catholic, right?

And you're a member of the Royal Family, right?

Well then, you don't have to bring your children up in the Faith......

......that is really for the grubby little average Catholic parent to do.

And, if any of them fail in their duty - I'll be down on them like a ton of New Age Hymnals!

Times have changed......

H/T to OTSOTA @ The Guild of Blessed Titus Brandsma and Deacon Nick @
Protect the Pope


Picture: Wikipedia Commons

No, it is not Catholic to throw flowers at a coffin

Archbishop Vincent Nichols is reported as saying that the relatively new custom of throwing flowers at a cortege (a la Princess Diana's funeral) or leaving bunches of flowers on the roadside at the site of a fatal accident, is evidence that Britain is re-discovering its Catholic heritage.

I disagree.
I see nothing Catholic in such actions that totally omit any element of Christianity.
In Ireland and in France and some of the other Mainland European countries, crucifixes are erected and, even, small shrines established.

That is a good Catholic custom.

Faded flowers at the roadside are mawkish and secular.
Throwing flowers at a coffin may have an emotional value but not a spiritual one.

What action could or should Catholics make?

Prayers, of course, but maybe we do also need a physical sign or symbol of grief. But what?

A prayer card encapsulated against the weather? A cross?

Any suggestions...please forward to Eccleston Square (but don't throw them at the Archbishop)

 

What would Cardinal Heenan have done?

                       Cardinal Heenan - to him the Church meant "authority" - and so it should

Picture: A Reluctant Sinner

I mean what would Cardinal Heenan have done in the sense of action over the gay "marriage" fiasco, or the gay Masses in Soho, Catholic Adoption Agencies caving in to government legislation, Catholic schools being cesspits of ignorance regarding the Faith, the Pathway to oblivion touted by Liverpool, the general lethargy of the hierarchy when it comes to standing up for Christ, being a witness to the Church Militant.

Well, he would not have remained silent.

He was always on television fighting the good fight.

He made acute observations regarding the new Mass in the vernacular ("the men won't go you know") although I am unsure as to why he didn't think that the women also would not go.

He it was who did more than any person other than, possibly, Mother Theresa, to bring broadcaster and intellectual, Malcolm Muggeridge into the fold.

The late Cardinal Heenan was a scrapper but always in a kind way. He gave witness to the Faith straight from the shoulder; he would not have waited until the last minute to issue a letter regarding the Church's view on same-sex marriage.

And I doubt Mr Barber would be getting his knees under the desk at the Catholic Education Service if the good Cardinal was still Archbishop of Westminster.

The following conversation is between the Cardinal and Malcolm Muggeridge before he jumped into the Tiber.

It gives an excellent insight into both men, it is amusing and forthright.
 In answer to Muggeridge's question "Presumably  you want people to become Roman Catholic?" His Eminence answers: "Yes. I want everybody to" - a no nonsense response, full of Christian love both for his Faith and for others.

Extract from Muggeridge: Through the Microphone; BBC Radio and Television, Edited by Christopher Ralling.

Muggeridge: I always feel that almost the only reason that I’d like to become a Cardinal would be to be waited on by nuns.

Cardinal: I think you’d make a very good Cardinal as a matter of fact.

Muggeridge: I doubt it strongly. Not a Cardinal, perhaps a bishop.

Cardinal: Well, you’ve got to start somewhere.

Muggeridge: I always like lunching on Fridays because we don’t have meat.

Cardinal: You’re not getting any fish, by the way, you’re getting an omelette.

Muggeridge: No, no, it’s very nice. This would be part of the Catholic life that I would find least difficult. I suppose it dates from a time when eating meat was a tremendously important thing.

Cardinal: Well, you know what they say. They say that it was an example of the Jewish instinct of the twelve Apostles; they were all fishermen, and they decided that if they made a rule about fish on Fridays, it would be good business. But I don’t think that’s a theological doctrine.

Muggeridge: How powerful is a Cardinal today?

Cardinal: How powerful? It really depends on what you mean by power.

Muggeridge: But aren’t you the boss of the bishops?

Cardinal: The boss of the bishops? No, the Pope is.

Muggeridge: But he’s your boss?

Cardinal: The Pope is my boss, but he’s also the boss of all the bishops. The Pope deals directly with the bishops, not through me necessarily.

Muggeridge: He can go over your head as it were?

Cardinal: Well, yes. I wouldn’t think of it in that way.

Muggeridge: No. But the thing is that of course the Church does indulge in the sort of magnificence and outward show which one associates with worldly power.

Cardinal: When you’re taking part in ritual, as I do very often, it is burdensome rather than self-glorifying.

Muggeridge: You mean you personally don’t like it too much?

Cardinal: Well, no, and also you’ve got to wear the robes. The same as the poor Queen when she wears the crown and the royal robes. I’m sure she’s most uncomfortable but nevertheless she knows that by doing this she gives a certain satisfaction to her people.

Muggeridge: To me, at any rate, such emulation of the trappings of earthly authority would seem to have a certain danger.

Cardinal: This outward panoply and foolishness that you are thinking of, this has its uses, because even sticking a chain round a man’s neck and calling him mayor of Wigan – I don’t mean that with any disrespect to Wigan, of course – but putting a chain round a man’s neck marks him out as chief citizen. If he’s not a fool he doesn’t really think he’s the brightest and best and best and most intelligent man in that particular town. Nevertheless, that chain of office shows him to be what he is; it’s a sign – a badge of his office. Incidentally, I’ve got a chain on too, with a Cross, and I always envy a Mayor his chain, because at the end of the year he can just take it off and go off on his own, but this thing will be with me until I’m in the coffin in the Cathedral…

Muggeridge: How about your role as proselytizer?

Cardinal: I loathe that word.

Muggeridge: Presumably you want more people to become Roman Catholics?

Cardinal: Yes. I want everybody to.

Muggeridge: Therefore you are a sort of missionary.

Cardinal: I object to the word proselytizer because it sounds like something very underhand, some poison, some snaky movement by which you’re trying to drag people from the truth and indoctrinate them….No, you wouldn’t call Christ a proselytizer; a preacher perhaps. We call the Apostles –

Muggeridge: Evangelists.

Cardinal: Evangelists, men who have the message, which they believe to be truth, and want to spread it everywhere. Now there’s nothing strange about that, because even if you happened to have discovered a cough cure and it really works, and you take this thing, this drug or injection, all winter, and never have a cold, you know well that you cannot stop telling your friends about it. If you’re a good man and you possess a good thing, you want to share it. There’s an old philosophical saying, Bonum est diffusivum sui. You’ll know this, of course, but for the sake of my colleagues on the bench I will translate. It means that goodness diffuses itself, spreads itself, it can’t help it, just as heat can’t help expanding, warmth glows. In this kind of way a person who possesses the faith wants to spread it, want his warmth to go out to others. Now that’s no problem to me. Is it a problem to you?

Muggeridge: No, not a problem at all.

Cardinal: But this is what you’ve got to remember. Although we don’t use the word because it’s an offensive kind of word to use, this country’s full of pagans, this country’s full of people who know as little about God as the so-called heathens that you mentioned.

Muggeridge: Since you would hold that your Church in certain respects has the message uniquely, you would presumably wish good Anglicans also to join it.

Cardinal: Well naturally; after all this country was once a completely Catholic country, as you know. It would be lovely if once again it would be a completely Catholic country, from my point of view. Whereas, as you know, others would say, ‘Oh no, just a moment, it was once a Catholic country, but the corruption of Rome spread, and it has to be cured by a complete revival and renewal, and then the old Catholic faith was restored and Romanism dissipated.’ That’s another point of view – not, as it happens, mine.

Muggeridge: I didn’t think it was. Anyway, the point is that presumably, in so far as you would in the long run hope to bring back the Anglican church into the fold, into the Roman Catholic fold, that would mean that you were a missionary in relation to them also; that even the Archbishop of Canterbury, say, is a target.

Cardinal: Well, target is hardly the word.

Muggeridge: How do you get along with him, incidentally?

Cardinal: He’s a very great friend of mine; I’m very fond of him, and of his wife too.

Muggeridge: Do you argue with him when you’re there?

Cardinal: I don’t think we argue in the sense of having controversy. It’s clear that as the Chief Bishop of the Church, the Anglican Church in this country and throughout the world, it’s hardly likely that when I go to Lambeth I would go with a whole bundle of tracts in my pocket and say, ‘Look, I must explain to you about Papal Infallibility.’ Of course not. Our conversation is on a very different level, and I don’t think he ever seriously tries to persuade me of the errors of Rome or offer me a job as his assistant or auxiliary bishop in Canterbury. No, we don’t do that. But if you ask me, I don’t want to appear in any way insincere. I do agree that my greatest desire would be to have all Englishmen Catholics again.

Muggeridge: And those little churches and cathedrals that used to be Catholic – all their bells would be ringing.

Cardinal: You’ve got to be quite mature before you realize what being a priest involves, particularly in the question of celibacy, giving up the right to a family and so on, and it’s at that time, I think that the crisis comes with most people. These young men realize, they might be 20, 19, 21, anything, but they’ll be quite mature and they will then say, ‘Now, for the first time I realize that this really does mean a lonely life.’ You’re not feeling miserable because you’re alone, but you’re a man apart.

The relationship between a Catholic priest and his people is something you’ve got to experience to understand, they call me Father and that’s a term of tremendous affection. Now that Fatherhood I find enormously attractive and uplifting, but the shouting and the kissing, that means very little indeed.

Muggeridge: What do people want from their religion?

Cardinal: It’s the unchanging teaching of the Church which answers the deepest appeal, I think, in the heart of the people.

Muggeridge: What is that unchanging teaching, in a word?

Cardinal: In a word, if you want a word – authority.

Muggeridge: Authority, whose authority?

Cardinal: The authority of the Church, made known through the Pope and through the Council.

Muggeridge: Contrasting with that, when you’re standing at the altar…?

Cardinal: Now that’s quite different. When I’m standing at the altar, I am there representing Christ. When I offer the Mass, I don’t say, ‘This is the Body of Christ,’ I say, ‘This is my Body,’ because I, John Heenan, don’t exist. That’s why the vestments are there to disguise my personality. I am standing there a mediator, as 

one representing Christ. That’s quite different; there I am the Church, so to speak.

Muggeridge: This is the difficult thing to understand.

Cardinal: Of course, of course.

Muggeridge: I mean, how do you feel, when you’re doing it?

Cardinal: Well, I’ve been a priest for thirty-five years, and I’ve offered Mass every day.

Muggeridge: For thirty-five years.

Cardinal: Yes, and sometimes more than once a day. Now there’s an old saying, an old Latin saw, – Ab ssuetis non fit passio – a thing you’re used to doesn’t affect you, and so, obviously, I don’t feel emotionally now as I did the day I put on vestments for the first time, and offered my first Mass as a young priest. I don’t feel the same but perhaps I treasure the Mass even more; the Mass means more to me now after thirty-five years of celebration daily, than it did then. But how to describe that and how to show that that should be so is very difficult.

Muggeridge: Does it add to your worries when you think that by and large people are falling away from the Christian religion?

Cardinal: Of course, of course. I don’t use the word worry, because I don’t worry about these things. It’s God’s business, you know. If they’re falling away from religion, they’re falling away from Him.

Muggeridge: But you wouldn’t feel that it’s because you’re being inadequate?

Cardinal: Yes, yes.

Muggeridge: Do you, when you wake up in the night, think that…

Cardinal: How do you know I wake up in the night?

Muggeridge: I’m sure you’re a fellow-insomniac. I can spot them. When you wake up, would it be a bad thing that would worry you to think to yourself, ‘Well, are we really making a great mistake’?

Cardinal: No, I don’t. On this, no. I have no doubts whatsoever.

Muggeridge: You would regard yourself as being a person who held, on the whole, for tradition?

Cardinal: Well yes, I would say that every Catholic really at heart values the tradition. You can’t be a Catholic without holding for tradition. We’re the one thing in a changing world that’s solid. We’re the thing that people can reach for.

Muggeridge: But you are going to go on being as solid as you have been?

Cardinal: I hope so. Of course we are. Rome is the centre of Christianity. This place is still the centre, and that’s not because of that material building. Because, you see, this city of Rome could be taken over by the communists tomorrow, or next year. But even if materially we abandoned Rome, the spiritual centre of the Church is the Pope, the Vicar of Christ, and, as you know, there have been Popes that have never seen Rome. At one time there were no less than three people claiming to be the Pope. There was vice in this Vatican. This was a centre of vice from time to time, the Borgia Popes and so on, and therefore we are sometimes inclined to think that this was the most wicked of all ages, but in fact, in many ways, it’s the best of all ages. And you asked some time ago where I stood, and was I against progress. The answer is no. But obviously when you get people emotionally charges and determined to broaden the view, there are going to be excesses, they’re going to exaggerate, they’re going to get it wrong, and some of us have got to stand quite firm and say, ‘Yes, I love this wide open view, but we mustn’t for a moment forget truth, we mustn’t pretend that truth doesn’t matter.

Archbishops attack......with feather dusters!

Tickling David Cameron pink!

Archbishops Vincent Nichols of Westminster and Peter Smith of Southwark made a statement to the Prime Minister yesterday decrying the move to legalise same-sex marriage.

It was, if I remember correctly, the Labour MP, Dennis Skinner, who, many years ago described an attack by Conservative politician, Geoffrey Howe MP, as: "Like being savaged by a dead sheep."

That really is how their Graces' message comes across; too little, too weak, too late.

But what could they have done now that the National Census report that shows that the number of Christians in Britain now equals roughly the number of three legged chickens and that belief in God is virtually non-existent (other than in the Muslim community).

Well - they could have done and, indeed still have time to do one of the following:-

1. Issue a Christmas Pastoral letter to make the 'sleeping' Catholic community fully aware of the value of Christian marriage.

2. Dedicate all Masses on the Feast of the Holy Family (December 30th) to the cause of preserving the sanctity of marriage.

3. Organise a national march to the House of Commons

4. Gather together all the Cardinals and Bishops of Great Britain and walk, as a body, the Tyburn route, reciting the Rosary at Marble Arch (site of the 'Tyburn Tree')

5. Dedicate a national day of prayer and penance on behalf of the cause.

6. Lobby all Catholic MPs and Peers to ensure that they are at one with the requirements of their beliefs.

Perhaps you could suggest some more initiatives?

Surely any of the above would be a valid response and much, much better than a rather weak "Dear John".

And please remember to vote in the sidebar....thank you.

God, in Your Mercy...

We implore Thee to inspire Your Archbishop and the Archdiocese of Westminster's clergy to put an end to the Soho Masses. God, in Your Mercy, hear our prayer.

I've written reams and even written songs about the grave scandal and utter spiritual travesty that is the Soho Masses. The worst thing about it is that it is opportunity for catechesis and evangelisation wasted.  You would think that if the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church were going to provide a Mass for people with same-sex attraction, in this era in which homosexuality is so actively promoted, that the above video is the very last thing it would look like. Yet, there it is.

Never have I seen a Mass hijacked for an altogether different agenda than the promotion of the Faith or the good of the whole World than the evidence of the Mass above. There are so many depressing things about it, but one of the most depressing is that the Mass has been turned into a social gathering with a bit of spirituality added in.

No, that isn't the most depressing thing. The most depressing thing is that they are the most introspective bidding prayers I have ever heard. It is a community turned in on itself. And then, to cap it all off, a roll call is read of the poor men who have died from Aids, we guess from within their own community! I know that the Church saves souls, not bodies, but if there is any hint, any hint at all, in that video that the Catholic Church promotes chastity for homosexual men, those Aids victim bidding prayers are that advertisement. What about the people of the parish who weren't gay, lesbian or who didn't die of Aids?! Do they not get prayed for by the LGBT community? Does God only care about gay people or something?

I would not like to be in Archbishop Vincent Nichols's shoes right now because I have a feeling that video is about to go viral and in Rome too. Pray that His Grace will have the courage to end his unswerving loyalty to this organisation of dissidents who seduce men, women and people in between to believe that a change in Church teaching signifying God's desire to drape the Church and the World in one big heavenly rainbow flag is just over the horizon while encouraging them to believe and behave as if He has already done so!

Pray that His Grace will divert his Apostolic authority and support to Encourage, who are in need of Apostolic support. Last I heard, they were looking around desperately for chaplains. Sadly, their website (http://www.encouragetrust.org.uk) seems to be down at the moment. A convincing manifesto to combat 'gay marriage' this video is not, Your Grace.

See also: Fr Ray Blake, Fr Tim Finigan, Linen on the Hedgerow, Caroline Farrow

Blessings of Civil Partnerships in Catholic Churches...Already?

H/T John Smeaton of SPUC

You know, a part of the problem with the Bishops of England and Wales's response to Summorum Pontificum, which, years later, can be described as not so much lukewarm as arctic freezing, is that they miss out on a great solution to a huge problem.

For instance, let's say you're the Archbishop of Westminster. You inherit from your predecessor, yes the one who sacked his press guy because he was in a gay relationship, a situation in which Masses are being celebrated solely for the LGBT community in Soho.

Not only have the Masses been organised by LGBT foot soldiers, but after a period of years of letters of complaint as well as public Acts of Reparation taking place near the Church, it becomes apparent that the message of the Gospel, the message of Salvation, is not quite getting the hearing it should be at those Masses. You learn that, instead, the Mass itself has been hijacked and is now being used as a vehicle for the gay 'agenda' which now involves Civil Partnerships, which are otherwise known as same-sex unions, unless, of course, you have been recruited by an apologist media network for the Bishops Conference called Catholic Vices, sorry, Voices.

You know that, ostensibly, the original hope (and it was a hope, certainly at the CDF) of the Masses being brought into the Catholic Church, was that this would be a sacred space in which men (and women) of a homosexual/lesbian orientation would get together in a spirit of brotherly/sisterly love and Christian humility and worship God in the Mass, receive encouragement from the Priest (and each other) to live good and holy lives and walk away from Mass, strengthened by the Holy Eucharist (and possibly the Sacrament of Penance) in order to carry that heavy Cross (and nobody doubts it is heavy) in the World, finding in that very Cross the source of life and Salvation itself.

Happy as Larry, they would walk away from Mass exclaiming "Deo gratias!! Brothers! Let us go hence and evangelise these den of iniquities you see around this Church. Let us bring other gay chaps to the fount of mercy and show them the tender love with which Christ has purchased our souls! See the Lord has given us brothers, let us love one another, taking for our example the purity with which Christ has so loved us! Come on, chaps! Shall we say the Rosary in Latin or English? Ave Maria, gratia plena..."

As far as the CDF was concerned, this was the original plan. That romantic dewy-eyed plan, if it ever did exist, at some point got thrown out of the window or burnt and instead the Catholic Church of Our Lady of the Assumption and St Gregory has been well and truly Stonewalled. Coverage of the scandalous infiltration of this Mass by elements in the Church who do not believe a single word that the Church teaches about homosexuality (i.e that homosexual sexual acts are gravely and mortally sinful and run contrary to both the natural law and the law of God) is available on the internet. Just type in 'Gay Masses' or 'Soho Masses' into Google and see what you get. What is more, these Masses have received healthy coverage on this blog.

However, now the Archbishop of Westminster has a new problem on His Grace's hands. The organiser of these Masses, a Martin Prendergast, who has a Guardian column (today he laments the successful Christian backlash against Tesco's support of gay Pride), has suggested that already 'blessings' of Civil Partnerships are taking place.

"What in Higgs Boson! Christopher Columbus! No! That's outrageous!"

...will surely be the Archbishop's response when he hears the news of it. After all, there is no way the Archbishop is going to allow a man who publicly states his belief in 'gay marriage' as being potentially 'sacramental' within the Church to enlist the help of Archdiocese of Westminster clergy to 'bless' Civil Partnerships in a Catholic Church! Certainly not while His Grace is fighting the good fight against the Government's plans for gay marriage!

Or, perhaps it isn't a problem at all. For 'who knows what's down the road' in the Archdiocese of Westminster? What with having quite masterfully spun, sorry, 're-framed' the issue of Civil Partnerships with the help of Catholic Voices, in terms a 'contribution to the common good', while praising the secular doctrine of 'equality' and thus having already set himself and the Bishops Conference of England and Wales on a collision course with Rome, I suppose there would be no huge problem for the Archbishop of Westminster's Diocesan clergy 'blessing' Civil Partnerships (that's gay unions, yep, and no buts!) in Catholic Churches. I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, 'Just how far down this road do we have to go before we get to Perdition?' and 'Didn't someone once say the road is paved with the skulls of Bishops and Priests?' Well, whoever said that, and whoever is saying that now: Just you hold your horses and your tongues!

I know that the idea of a Catholic priest blessing a Civil Partnership, that is, a legal union of two men or two women bound together by their shared sexual attraction for one another, doesn't sound very, um...Catholic.

'That's the kind of stuff that would only possibly happen in an Anglican Church, right?' 

That might be what you're thinking, but then, you have to consider that this is England and Wales and we do things slightly differently here, don't we? We're more 'nuanced'. We have a veritable army of influential Catholics whose party trick at The Tablet's annual ball is to nuance themselves out of hermitically sealed steel boxes to the astonished disbelief of onlookers.

What a sorry mess. It raises questions. Who, indeed, needs to know 'what's down the road' when what happened five miles back was this bad? Why hasn't Austen recruited this guy for Catholic Voices? I mean, he's more or less saying things vaguely in line with the Archbishop, right? Don't you just love his definition of chastity for those in the single, or unmarried state? It's about 'wholeness' you know! Whatever it is about, it's not about not having sex or even striving (if failing) to adhere to the Church's moral teachings.

Nonetheless, the Archbishop should be concerned about the Soho Masses, at least in terms of how His Grace is seen in Rome, even if His Grace's concern does not extend to the poor mislead Souls attracted to the 'gay Masses' and who fall into the ideological, moral and theological errors that only an incredibly 'nuanced' brand of Catholicism can achieve.

Furthermore, if His Grace is more concerned about the Soho Masses than he appears in public, sorry, just have to hold my tongue a sec, guess it must be an ulcer of some kind, then His Grace could do worse than to send a Catholic priest of a Traditional mold to the Parish of Our Lady of the Assumption and St Gregory and do away with the lay-led prayers and 'gay lifestyle affirmation course' said to be present at the Masses, and replace the 'Gay Mass' with a Low Mass in the Extraordinary Form. Problem solved. Within 6 months it would be a very different 'scene' altogether. It might even start resembling the Brompton Oratory. Why! I might even consider attending myself!

This is what's "down the road"

This, for those from overseas who might not know it, is the only site memorial that we in Great Britain have to our Reformation Martyrs - the men and women who offered up their lives and suffered most brutally for the sake of Our Blessed Lord and His Mass.

The memorial lies on a small traffic island at one end of London's Edgware Road facing Marble Arch.

It is hardly what one could describe as uplifting; a small, cracked roundel set into the pavement.

St Thomas More (yes I know he was martyred at the Tower, not Tyburn) would have said that this apology of a memorial was the result of "a weak clergy lacking in grace".

Somehow that quote resounds constantly in my ears these days.

I posted on this issue about 12 months ago when I had only just begun my blogging nightmare journey.

I did not really expect any sort of reaction from the Church authorities and I have not been disappointed.

But, really, it is shameful!

Would some brave soul bring this issue to the attention of Archbishop Nichols and would His Grace make the cause for a fitting memorial one of his New Year resolutions?

With the London Gay Pride event due to pass within a few hundred yards of Tyburn this summer would it not be a good and wholesome thing to mark what we Catholics deem important?

This post would not be complete without coverage of the 'new' image that is on display, just a few rope lengths from where the martyrs shed their blood - here it is.............

So profound, so moving, the "Jelly Baby" sculpture
standing at Tyburn - dedicated to.....what?

It was destined to be in place for 12 months up until April 2011 but from all accounts it's still there. Wonderful!

Was Orwell writing about Communism....?



Did he mean an Episcopal boot?


...or was it really Catholicism?

Extract from Animal Farm.....

".....And yet the animals never gave up hope. More, they never lost, even for an instant, their sense of honour and privilege in being members of Animal Farm. They were still the only farm in the whole county-in all England!-owned and operated by animals.
Not one of them, not even the youngest, not even the newcomers who had been brought from farms ten or twenty miles away, ever ceased to marvel at that. And when they heard the gun booming and saw the green flag fluttering at the masthead, their hearts swelled with imperishable pride, and the talk turned always towards the old heroic days, the expulsion of Jones, the writing of the Seven Commandments, the great battles in which the human invaders had been defeated. None of the old dreams had been abandoned. The Republic of the Animals which Major had foretold, when the green fields of England should be untrodden by human feet, was still believed in. Some day it was coming: it might not be soon, it might not be with in the lifetime of any animal now living, but still it was coming. Even the tune of Beasts of England was perhaps hummed secretly here and there: at any rate, it was a fact that every animal on the farm knew it, though no one would have dared to sing it aloud. It might be that their lives were hard and that not all of their hopes had been fulfilled; but they were conscious that they were not as other animals. If they went hungry, it was not from feeding tyrannical human beings; if they worked hard, at least they worked for themselves. No creature among them went upon two legs. No creature called any other creature "Master." All animals were equal.

One day in early summer Squealer ordered the sheep to follow him, and led them out to a piece of waste ground at the other end of the farm, which had become overgrown with birch saplings. The sheep spent the whole day there browsing at the leaves under Squealer's supervision. In the evening he returned to the farmhouse himself, but, as it was warm weather, told the sheep to stay where they were. It ended by their remaining there for a whole week, during which time the other animals saw nothing of them. Squealer was with them for the greater part of every day. He was, he said, teaching them to sing a new song, for which privacy was needed.

It was just after the sheep had returned, on a pleasant evening when the animals had finished work and were making their way back to the farm buildings, that the terrified neighing of a horse sounded from the yard. Startled, the animals stopped in their tracks. It was Clover's voice. She neighed again, and all the animals broke into a gallop and rushed into the yard. Then they saw what Clover had seen.

It was a pig walking on his hind legs.

Yes, it was Squealer. A little awkwardly, as though not quite used to supporting his considerable bulk in that position, but with perfect balance, he was strolling across the yard. And a moment later, out from the door of the farmhouse came a long file of pigs, all walking on their hind legs. Some did it better than others, one or two were even a trifle unsteady and looked as though they would have liked the support of a stick, but every one of them made his way right round the yard successfully. And finally there was a tremendous baying of dogs and a shrill crowing from the black cockerel, and out came Napoleon himself, majestically upright, casting haughty glances from side to side, and with his dogs gambolling round him.

He carried a whip in his trotter.

There was a deadly silence. Amazed, terrified, huddling together, the animals watched the long line of pigs march slowly round the yard. It was as though the world had turned upside-down. Then there came a moment when the first shock had worn off and when, in spite of everything-in spite of their terror of the dogs, and of the habit, developed through long years, of never complaining, never criticising, no matter what happened-they might have uttered some word of protest. But just at that moment, as though at a signal, all the sheep burst out into a tremendous bleating of-

"Four legs good, two legs better! Four legs good, two legs better! Four legs good, two legs better!"

It went on for five minutes without stopping. And by the time the sheep had quieted down, the chance to utter any protest had passed, for the pigs had marched back into the farmhouse".

And Archbishop Nichols' statement this week?

"We would want to emphasise that civil partnerships actually provide a structure in which people of the same sex who want a lifelong relationship [and] a lifelong partnership can find their place and protection and legal provision,
............
As a Church we are very committed to the notion of equality so that people are treated the same across all the activities of life. The Church holds great store by the value of commitment in relationships and undertakings that people give. Stability in society depends upon the reliability of commitments that people give. That might be in offering to do a job but especially in their relationships with one another. Equality and commitment are both very important and we fully support them".

 And the Ten Five Commandments....

1. No Catholic shall practice homosexuality to excess

2. No Catholic school should teach explicit sex education  on Mondays

3. No Catholic should approve of euthanasia very often

4. No Catholic priest should celebrate a Mass for homosexuals except at
    Warwick Street

5. No Catholic should be deprived of the Latin Mass except in all parishes


A tip of the Biretta  to Fathers, Ray, Tim and Z and many other bloggers who have covered this subject.

St John Baptist de La Salle - please come to the aid of the Vaughan

And, indeed, please also come to the aid of His Grace, Archbishop Nichols and help him to successfully oversee the appointment of a new headteacher for The Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School.

St John Baptist de La Salle is generally regarded as the main patron of teachers and this coming Thursday, 15th September, the Vaughan Parents and their supporters will gather in the Piazza outside Westminster Cathedral at 7pm for a Vigil of Prayer.

The 'Father of Modern Education'

The last couple of years have not been happy ones for the Vaughan, or, for that matter, Westminster Diocese although the issues that have arisen have been a result of the Diocese riding roughshod over the wishes and the rights of parents and Governors of the school. Much of that will now change thanks to intervention from the House of Lords but......the issue hanging over the school now is to appoint a new headteacher. Someone who can ably resume the role played by Michael Gormally, the recently retired head.

It is not easy recruiting headteachers. It is even harder to find a good one. Heads these days have to both know the teaching elements back to front as well as manage people (staff, pupils, parents - and Archbishops) and manage what is, in effect, a major multi-faceted organisation.

The new Head will need to be able to assume the role without interference from the Diocese - I have no doubt that there will be interference but his/her role is to manage the school on behalf of the Board, staff and parents; and it is the Head who must have the freedom to act on their own initiative and take risks - a successful school is also a risk taking business. It cannot be successful if the Head is constantly looking over his/her shoulder to see if the Nazguls of the Diocesan Education Department are on the march.

I hope that the Diocesan authorities will realise that a strong headteacher will be both good for the school and good for the Archbishop.

The advertisment for the new head appears on 16th September so, if you are free,
join the Vaughan Parents on the 15th at 7pm - Westminster Cathedral Piazza.

And if you can't make it in person, then please light a candle for a successful appointment.

Woolly Mammoth found in Westminster Diocese!

A current phrase that is bandied around somewhat is "the elephant in the room" referring to a large problem or issue that overshadows all else.

Well, in Westminster Archdiocese they have a Woolly Mammoth in the room, frozen in time, long passed its sell by date ("use by 7th July 2007") and still no sign of the ice melting.

Mammuthus Westminsterii

I refer to the scandalous fact that, out of all the Diocese of England and Wales, only Westminster has not moved forward one step since the Holy Father's Motu Proprio regarding the responsibilities of the clergy in providing the Extraordinary Form of Mass wherever there was a demand.

Where may you attend an EF Mass in London (Westminster) on a Sunday?

The London Oratory 9am 

St James, Spanish Place 9.30am (thank you Fr Colven and the priest who comes to celebrate Mass each week (but please use a microphone)

St Edmund's, Ware (where?)

Holy Trinity and St Augustine, Baldock (one Sunday per month)

And that's it! Hardly a lavish offering, not exactly what Pope Benedict had in mind!

Westminster is small geographically but big in terms of Catholic population, it is a Diocese that includes the capital city of London - is that meagre offering good enough?

Let's just look at the profile and resources of Westminster.....

214 Parishes

417 secular priests

263 priests belonging to a religious order

49 - assorted others

That's a total of 729 priests!

Yet all that Archbishop Nichols can manage to provide is 3.25 EF Masses on a Sunday! Extraordinary! More than extraordinary it is a cause for scandal!

By my rough reckoning that makes the Sunday Mass score something like this:-

OF Masses circa................ 400

Homosexual Mass................. 1

EF Masses......................... 3.75

What are the Traditional Catholics of Westminster doing about it? Holding prayer vigils in the Piazza? Nope. Creating petitions to forward to Rome? Nope. Writing to the Papal Nuncio? Maybe.

As an ex Westminster Diocese Catholic I appeal for all to write to Archbishop Nichols in the first instance and then to Archbishop Mennini - perhaps then we can slice the Woolly Mammoth up and let the ice melt away for good.

Westminster Diocese bottles out of meeting

In all things to love and serve - but not as far
 as Westminster Diocese is concerned!

A good opportunity to build bridges or, at least to put their point of view across to parents of Cardinal Vaughan School pupils was lost last Monday night when Westminster Diocese decided against representation at an open meeting held to discuss the way ahead.

You do not need to employ a PR guru or to have any depth of knowledge regarding inter personal skills to understand that the Diocese (and Archbishop Nichols) are on the hind foot and have been in that position for some time.
Someone close to his Grace needs the courage to tell him that they are in a situation where, whatever  the final outcome, they just cannot win. In brief, when in a hole you should stop digging!

The Vaughan Parents were disappointed at the 'no show' by Westminster Diocese - here is their report of the meeting:-

"Monday night’s meeting between parents and governors, so long requested and so often denied, was a cause for both celebration and disappointment:  celebration because parents left governors in no doubt about their unity and passionate commitment to their children’s School, but disappointment at the lost opportunity to build bridges and move forward, because of the absence of any diocesan representation at the meeting.

The meeting had been advertised as an opportunity for parents to ask questions, both of the Governing Body and the Diocese, about decisions concerning the governance of the School and plans for its future direction.  Over 400 parents attended and took the opportunity to demonstrate their enthusiastic support, both for their elected parent governors and for the staff, represented by acting Head, Charles Eynaud and Deputy Head, Paul Stubbings.  Parents asked probing questions, principally of the Chairman of Governors, John O’Donnell.

Apart from the Diocese’s regrettable decision not to send an official representative, foundation governors Paul Barber (Diocesan Director of Education), Monsignor James Curry (Archbishop’s representative on the Governing Body) and newly appointed Kate Griffin (member of the Executive Board of the Catholic Education Service) were also absent.  This meant that there was no one who could answer with authority any question about overall policy or more detailed questions about why some foundation governors had been removed and others appointed.  The other absentee was Ike Offiah, one of the two foundation governors retrospectively designated as a “parent”, although he has no child in the School.

In attendance were foundation governors Rita Biddulph, Michael Craven, Gerry Kelly,  Bwalya Kwanga, Rory O’Hare and Mary Waplington, the other designated “parent” (with no child in the School), as well as elected parent governors James King, Jackie Knight, John Murphy  Andrzej Rumun and Janusz Zajaczkowski, and local authority governor, Sir Adrian FitzGerald.

Mr O’Donnell’s explanation that diocesan officials could not be present because the parent governors’ legal action against the Diocese remained unresolved prompted a question from a parent:  if the ongoing nature of the legal action was sufficient to prevent diocesan attendance at this meeting, why was it not sufficient to halt the process of appointing a new Head?  Mr O’Donnell replied that, because the appointment of a new Head was Governing Body business, it could proceed.

In answer to a question, Mr O’Donnell said that the process of appointing a new Head had stalled earlier in the year, because the “field was not strong enough”; his attempted assurance that “the search for an outstanding Head teacher continues” elicited a shout of “He’s behind you!” from the back of the Hall, to much laughter and tumultuous applause (Mr Eynaud and Mr Stubbings were sitting on the platform behind Mr O’Donnell).

Many of the pre-submitted questions, a list of which was circulated at the start of the meeting, were directed to the expected diocesan representative. Mr O’Donnell answered a question about the Diocese’s future plans for the School by saying, “The Diocese has no plans for the School”; this was greeted by disbelief.

A parent took the meeting through the Diocese’s actions since the beginning of the current dispute:  referral of its admission arrangements to the Office of the Schools Adjudicator, replacement of seven foundation governors (including two Chairmen of Governors) in two years, refusal to appoint current parents as foundation governors, objections to music scholarships, refusal to meet parents.  He concluded, “And you expect us to believe that the Diocese has no hidden agenda for the School?”  This was warmly applauded.

VPAG Chairman, Anna Brown, said, “We were delighted that so many parents cared enough to attend this meeting, called at relatively short notice at such a busy time of the school year.  A high proportion had questions to ask, and their support for the elected parent governors and the staff was wonderful to see.  It was gratifying to note that, when they were asked, on a show of hands, whether there was any opposition to the activities of the VPAG, only two hands were raised.

“We hope the Governing Body will take away from this meeting, and communicate to the Diocese, the absolute determination of Vaughan parents to preserve the ethos, traditions and standards of the School.  We call on the Archbishop, in anticipation of the government’s announced intention to amend the regulations, to appoint now two parents of pupils currently on the School roll.  We ask him also to use his good offices to bring this sad dispute to an end, by advising his foundation governors to ensure that a Head is appointed who will command support from all sections of the Governing Body.”

PLEASE NOTE: If you would like to sign the petition in support of the School Parents here it is http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/save-cardinal-vaughan-memorial-school.html

The Archbishop's worst nightmare - The Vaughan parents carry on the fight!

Just when Archbishop Nichols thought it was safe to go back into the water and get on with tackling the London Oratory School and its avowed intent to screen parents of prospective pupils to determine whether they are real or post code Catholics; the Cardinal Vaughan Parents' Action Group has announced resumption of its fight to elect Foundation Governors of parental choice rather than the choice of the Diocese.

Now, climbing down is always hard; it must be very hard for an Archbishop but that is what his advisors should be telling him to do. Look at the facts, ++ Nichols now has two of the Country's best, most Catholic schools lined up in direct opposition to him. They do not care whether their pupils are sons and daughters of the great and the good (or politicians), they are not worried about how much Papa has in the bank. What they are concerned with is maintaining the Catholic ethos of their school and continuing to achieve magnificent results.
They could not give a toss at the prospect of little Leo Blair joining their ranks - their policy is to be open to all who are practising their faith. Good!
The function of a Diocese is to provide for the spiritual management of their Catholic population; the function of a Catholic school is to operate utilising the skills and experiences of its staff and supporters in accord with Catholic beliefs. Education Departments (of any kind) rarely have the skills of a current, senior teacher or Deputy Head. Yes, I know that Westminster's Education Department is staffed with ex teachers but, in this fast moving world it is no longer valid to say that your experience was gained in the 1980s - the education world has changed! Things have moved on....we have computers, whiteboards, learning resource centres........

Here is the letter from the CVPAG:-

Dear Parents, Staff and Friends of the Vaughan
 We have decided to continue our fight for the appointment of two Vaughan parents as Foundation Governors on the Vaughan Governing Body, so today we lodged papers with the Supreme Court requesting leave to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal.  If we are granted permission the following, and final, step will be to take the case to the Supreme Court.

Whilst we lost in the Court of Appeal on a split vote (two judges found against us, one for) we remain convinced that the interpretation of the law made by Sir Richard Buxton is what was intended by the law makers. Whilst the drafting of the legislation has clearly been shown to be open to interpretation we firmly believe that the spirit of the law is with us.

The Governing Body Today

As we stated in our last communication, and as noted in the minutes of the Governing Body meeting of 2 February, available on the Vaughan website, if the Foundation Governors decide that they want to pass a motion not only can they hide behind anonymity but they can also hide behind the non-disclosure of the voting pattern - no record of the votes are recorded, a simple “majority” is noted. 

The block vote of the 11 Foundation Governors can, and will, pass any motion they desire.  This remains a concern for us in the appointment of a new head teacher and over the coming years for the future of the school.

We do not know what the diocese intends for the school and it is about time that those concerned were open with us all.

The Communication on the Diocesan Website

Whilst we do not want to go in for a tit for tat with the diocese, we would like to counter some of the misleading and disingenuous claims made by Bishop Stack on the diocesan web site, claims that seek to achieve the moral high ground.

·        “Like the

Appeal Court

, we regret the wasteful court action brought against the Archbishop of Westminster by a number of parents associated with the Vaughan Parents Action Group”.  Firstly, the action was taken by the elected Parent Governors; the Vaughan Parents’ Action Group came into being after the action had been initiated in order to support the Parent Governors.  We remain indebted to this support.  Secondly, we also regret the need to have pursued this course of action.  It was however, necessary because the diocese would not appoint two existing parents as Foundation Governors

·        “It is important to note that the ‘Vaughan Parents Action Group’ is not supported by the School. It is not to be confused with the Vaughan Parents Association, which is the recognised parents’ association. Rather it is a campaign whose leaders include two former Governors of the school and the former Headmaster”. One characteristic that the diocese has demonstrated over recent years is that anyone who does not obey is “dealt with”.  For two Chairs of the Governing Body and four other Foundation Governors this meant being replaced when their term was complete irrespective of their wishes to continue to serve the school.  The Parent Governors took the specific decision not to compromise members of staff of the school for fear of retribution on them.  Likewise all communication from the Vaughan Parents’ Association goes through the school, so a separate sub-committee was established.

Next Steps

Despite requests from the Parent Governors at each of the 3 Governing Body meetings this academic year, the Governing Body by virtue of the Foundation Governor majority vote is still refusing to meet with parents.  We will make this same request at the forthcoming Governing Body meeting.

You may have noted the recent departure from the Governing Body of Fr Michael Johnston who was appointed in September.  We would ask the diocese to show some goodwill and now appoint a parent as a Foundation Governor.  Actions speak louder than words.

Finally, and once again, we wish to thank parents and friends for your overwhelming support of our action.  Without your help and generous funding we would not have been able to take this action through the courts.  We are particularly grateful to the Vaughan Parents’ Association and the Vaughan Parents’ Action Group for their ongoing, tireless and very effective support.  

The Parent Governors:

·        Dr Jim King

·        Mrs Jackie Knight

·        Mr John Murphy

·        Mr Andrzej Rumun

·        Mr Janusz Zajaczkowski

12 May 2011

Gove gives Cardinal Vaughan a hint

Not that I think that the Parents, Teachers and bona fide Board Members of the Cardinal Vaughan School need much of a pointer, they strike me as being pretty high on the initiative stakes and, I am sure, the possibility of turning the School into an Academy is one that has occupied much of their thinking.

 HERE IS AN EXTRACT FROM THIS WEEKS' CATHOLIC HERALD INTERVIEW WITH THE EDUCATION MINISTER

By Mark Greaves

 

Michael Gove, Education Minister

 

Michael Gove: 'Catholic schools must be allowed sufficient autonomy to integrate the Catholic faith into every aspect of school life' (Photo: PA)

Catholic schools can avoid “unsympathetic meddling” by secularists (can he mean ++ Nichols and his team?) if they take up the Government’s offer of academy status, the Education Secretary has said.
Writing in The Catholic Herald this week, Michael Gove said that opting out of local authority control would ensure a Catholic school could “remain true to its Catholic traditions”.
He urged parents who favoured academy reform to “make their voices heard” as bishops and governors consider whether to take up the offer.
Mr Gove’s plea comes after the Catholic Education Service of England and Wales (CESEW) signalled for the first time that Catholic schools could become academies if they and their bishops wanted to.
About 150 “outstanding” schools have become academies under Mr Gove’s model but none of them, until last month, were Catholic. In light of the CESEW statement, Mr Gove said he hoped to see “many Catholic schools coming forward to become academies during the next year”.
He said the academy model gave Catholic schools a chance to extend “hard-won freedoms” over admissions, staff appointments, the teaching of religion and the way they are governed.
He said Catholic schools had “a deserved reputation for being well-run” and had provided “some of the most conspicuously inspiring leaders in the field”. He cited Michael Gormally, former headmaster at Cardinal Vaughan Memorial school, west London, and John McIntosh, former head at the London Oratory.
Mr Gove said: “Of course, what really makes Catholic schools stand out is their Catholicity …(it just took a Conservative Politician to highlight this fact for the benefit of Westminster's Education team) A key element of [Cardinal Manning’s] vision was that Catholic schools must be allowed sufficient autonomy to integrate the Catholic faith into every aspect of school life(Westminster Diocese please note). A Catholic ethos is not something confined to RE lessons, but a pervasive set of values that find expression throughout the school day.”(Is Gove an RC?)
The Education Secretary said that people who opposed academies and free schools on ideological grounds were also likely to be hostile to faith schools.(No prizes for guessing who is likely to be opposing any moves in this direction)
He said: “Active in the teachers’ unions and in other parts of the education establishment, they often misrepresent the Catholic school ethos as a mechanism of religious indoctrination and wrongly portray the admissions criteria used by Catholic schools as selection on the sly…(Couldn't have put it better myself). “But by becoming an academy, a Catholic school can place can itself permanently out of range of any such unsympathetic meddling and so ensure it can remain true to its Catholic traditions.”(!)
Schools that become academies have more independence over what they teach and can exert greater power over unions. They also gain extra funding that would otherwise be handed to the local authority.
Catholic academies will be funded entirely by the state. The Church will stop paying 10 per cent of its capital costs, as it does under the voluntary-aided system.
Eric Hester, retired Catholic headteacher, said there were “big advantages” to becoming an academy, but that Mr Gove had failed to mention them.
He said: “The biggest advantage is that an academy school does not have to follow the national curriculum, so Catholic governors will have regained control of this most important area.”
But Mr Hester said it was a “big blow” that academy reforms required the permission of the local bishop.
“We are not talking about a benign figure in a mitre,” he said. “We are talking about diocesan bureaucrats, many of whom are as thick as thieves with the local authorities.”(No, can this be true? - gag!)
Earlier this month St Joseph’s College in Trent Vale, Stoke, became the first Catholic school to acquire academy status under the Coalition’s reforms.
Headteacher Roisin Maguire said the change allowed the school to set its own priorities without outside influence and “be master of its own destiny”.
She said it secured the school’s future “from a financial point of view” but was not a response to “meddling” over its Catholic identity. “We’ve never really suffered from that,” she said. “We are aware [of] what people say about faith schools but we don’t spend a lot of time worrying about it.” The school, rated as “outstanding” by Ofsted, is in the trusteeship of the Christian Brothers and so is independent from the Archdiocese of Birmingham.
Andy Burnham, Shadow Education Secretary, said Catholic schools were an “important” part of the education system, and had been “early adopters” of the Labour academy model, “turning around schools in some of the most deprived parts of the country”.
He said Mr Gove “risks diverting resources and attention from raising standards for all children, by focusing obsessively on structural changes such as free schools – which at best will be meaningless for the majority of parents, and at worst could see standards fall and inequality rise as has happened in Sweden”.
A full version of Michael Gove’s article is printed in this week’s edition of The Catholic Herald.

Ends/.................

The grit in the Vaughan's pot of vaseline, is of course, permission from Westminster to go down this route...but what a strong argument the academy option makes for itself.
By becoming an academy the School would save the Diocese a considerable sum of money, 10% year on year of its capital costs! Now, I've no idea of the Vaughan budget but the savings have surely got to be several hundreds of thousands per year?
Could this be the way to go? Watch this space! Meanwhile, more prayers and cash needed for this great School.