“The deliberate misuse of Newman is a token of a crisis, unprecedented in the history of the Church. It has grown around the Catholic acceptance of a promotion of the counterfeit doctrine of conscience promoted by Mill and corrected by Newman. Among Catholics, that counterfeit was put in place by the opposition to Humanae Vitae. It was an opposition created by theologians, promoted in the Catholic press and transmitted by priests who urged the faithful to ‘follow your conscience’, without helping the faithful to form their conscience in the light of the teaching of the Church with the help of the sacraments, the gift of grace and presence of Christ.”

Extract from “Conscience, the Papacy and the State - a talk given at Birmingham Oratory” by Fr Dermot Fenlon on Saturday 1 March 2008.

The full text of the talk is available here and speaks for Fr Dermot Fenlon whilst he is unable to.

In his article in the print edition of the Catholic Herald of 27 August 2010, Jack Valero stated it was time for the likes of this blog and others to “pack up shop” on the issue of the Birmingham Oratory. We would provide the link to the article but can't because the article is not available online. This is the best we can do just now. 

It has already been said in comments here and elsewhere (and, before anyone suggests it, no we did not post the particular comment in the link), that it is rumoured that Br Lewis was to be ordained to the priesthood in October of this year. How that is reconciled with the reason given for his going to South Africa for at least a year as being that his formation “will best be met in an Oratorian community that will afford him greater opportunities for a varied programme of pastoral work, as the Church requires of a deacon” remains to be seen. 

On the one hand ordination this year but on the other no reference to ordination any time soon?

When asked publicly to ‘pack up shop’ by a spokesman appointed by the Bishops Conference what is the correct response? Does one: 

• Shut up on the basis that an official spokesman has told one to?

Or

• Continue asking questions?
   

On balance we think the correct response is to continue asking questions. That answer then does raise the question of whether steps will be taken to "shut the shop". As with the truth of the Birmingham Oratory situation, only time will tell the answer to that question.

Statement aside, if Brother Lewis is so firmly opposed to the behaviour of "intemperate bloggers and journalists" (as referred to by Jack in the same Catholic Herald article) then why didn't he just say so in the first place? Also, if The Three are entirely happy with the way things are going, why a statement from only one? The younger one... the one most likely to cave in to pressure?

Over at the Little Oratory's blog there has been an 'appeal for circumspection' in relation to the situation at the Birmingham Oratory.

The 'Long Suffering Rector' says:

"As we are all only too well aware, the situation in the Birmingham Oratory is far from happy, and has given rise to a great deal of comment and speculation in the press.

It would be most unhelpful were any Brother of the Little Oratory in London to be seen to be making public or semi-public statements on this matter.

We must refrain from any comment when asked by outsiders, other than to say that it is an internal matter for the Birmingham House, and must be careful not to discuss this situation amongst ourselves where there is the possibility of our being overheard. We must also refrain from entering the fray of comments in the blogosphere.

We should be praying - not indulging in conjecture and gossip."

 Let's see how long it takes for someone to mention Godwin's Law...

• Catholic Education Service
• Archbishop Vincent Nichols
• Catholic schools
• Humanae Vitae
• Connexions
• Marriage Care
• Contraception

You may also want to take a look at John Smeaton's postings on the subject.

We look forward to reading productive and relevant comments…...

: 

 

...not just a private preference for how to spend a Sunday morning...

In October 1977, an article in Công Giao va Dân Tôc (the official newspaper of the state-run Southern Catholic Liaison Committee) stated: "Faced with these activities threatening political security and the danger that they will lead to activities opposing the Revolution, the revolutionary authorities could not allow this to continue and were forced to arrest Nguyen Van Ly".

Whilst there may have been speculation by third parties that I have been subject to abuse of canon law process, I can state categorically that that has not been the case and that every care and attention was taken by Fr Felix Selden and others to ensure my physical and spiritual wellbeing at all times. 

Although I am grateful for people having taken such an interest in me, it was unnecessary. The theories of one type or another that I understand have been circulating have all been without truth and I ask that they cease as such speculation is damaging to the Church and hierarchy at this momentous time.

Any questions?

Er sorry……Sorry I don’t think I can answer that question.

Or that one.

Or that one.

Or that one. My, is that the time? How it passes. Anyway, thanks all for coming and what lovely weather we’re having. Got to go now……Bye…..

We still won’t believe it.

And what of Fr Dermot Fenlon? Will he make a statement confirming everything is absolutely ticketyboo and that all’s right with the world or will he be given the push into the Oratorian equivalent of outer space? Only time will tell….

The pairing of a disciple of Hans Küng with one of St. Josemaría Escrivá to defend celibacy seems a trifle odd to us. 

Let's just have a look at some of Hans Küng's public pronouncements on celibacy. 

“Compulsory celibacy is the principal reason for today’s catastrophic shortage of priests, for the fatal neglect of eucharistic celebration, and for the tragic breakdown of personal pastoral ministry in many places.” 

He also argues that there are two solutions to the shortage of priests - “Abolition of the celibacy rule, the root of all these evils, and the admission of women to ordination. The bishops know this, but they do not have the courage to say it in public.”  

Were these the views of St. Josemaría Escrivá? We think not.

Is it just us or isn't there a yawning philosophical and theological chasm separating Frank and Jack that no amount of PR will bridge? Surely there would be room for a debate between the two of them on this issue alone? 

And the Chairman of the CES is another memer of the defence team. 

But heck, who are we to comment on this - we just ain't got that 'blue sky big tent broad nuchurch vision thing'....

Keep spinning……… 

We would have included the clip direct but some technical issues are proving frustrating at the moment.

The Lovingit Locum Team 

John Smeaton's blog on the issue can be read here.

Ruth's interview on ITV Central last night can be watched here.

Further news to follow.

The Lovingit Locum Team

"They can come back soon", "It's not going to be soon"

Nice one.

The move should happen at some point in the next 24 hours during which time some odd things might happen like votes not counting and comments not appearing, apologies for any inconvenience caused.

English Catholic officials (whatever that means) are hoping that Pope Benedict will do exactly the same as all the other Bishops around here...

English Catholic officials are hoping that the Pope will not further inflame anti-Catholic sentiment by speaking out against gay marriage or adoption, or abortion and divorce.

They are focusing on common ground between the Vatican and the British government in such areas as the environment and international development. But this was thrown into jeopardy last month when Andrew Mitchell, the International Development Secretary, announced an “unprecedented focus” on abortion and contraception in all future British overseas aid programmes.

The Pope will also be visiting the UK just a month after the last of 11 Catholic adoption agencies lost its legal battle to stay open in the face of gay rights laws compelling them to assess same-sex couples as adopters.

The Pope denounced such British equality laws as a “violation of the natural law” when he met the bishops of England and Wales in Rome earlier this year.

[link]

I have to wonder - why is it that Pope Benedict is seen as a ticking time bomb of orthodoxy who might at any moment "inflame anti-Catholic sentiment by speaking out against gay marriage or adoption, or abortion and divorce" while Archbishop Nichols is somehow regarded as.. um.. safe?

I mean - is he not a Catholic Bishop? Does he not believe all the same things as the Pope? Is he not just as likely to stand up in public and defend Catholic teaching? To speak out against gay marriage or abortion?

He could do it... any time he likes.

Funny that.

Unbelievable.

Meanwhile, it would seem that while the Oratory are busy sending Fr Lewis away for very ordinary training at the other end of the world (a tradition begun by Newman?) the Archdiocese of Birmingham think he is already ordained!

The Bishops will be happy when you're going away!

Visit Laurence's Blog

One hundred days is not a short period of time. In one hundred days you could walk from Edinburgh to London and you would only need to cover four miles a day.

To get 100 days in prison you have to do something fairly serious. There was the priest who got 100 days in prison for stealing thousands of dollars from his Church. There was the man who got 100 days in prison for ignoring a stop sign on his motorbike and killing a man. Then there was the man who attacked his girlfriend who also got 100 days in prison.

The Birmingham Three - Fr Dermot Fenlon, Fr Philip Cleevely and Brother Lewis Berry - have done nothing wrong. This is official. Jack Valeo told me on Radio West Midlands that "there's no indication they've done something wrong, they've been punished or anything. these words are wrong they give the wrong impression". Ruth Dudley Edwards says that Jack "has confirmed unequivocally that the Three are entirely guiltless of any wrong-doing whatsoever, including, specifically, sexual misdemeanours or homophobia.

So why have they been exiled for 100 days?

Why has one of them been sent away for a year?

Why are rumours flying around all over the place that the other two will get an even worse sentence?

Today the story hits The Daily Telegraph and we learn a little more about the location of Frs Fenlon and Cleevely: "The Oratory has refused to explain why the three priests have been sent away – one is now in America, another in Canada and the third is going to South Africa"

If these three men have done nothing wrong then the obvious thing is to send them home, end the media speculation and lift the shadow from the Papal visit.

Apt.

This one goes out to all the bullies...

Nobody is perfect but surely the point of an adoption agency is to discriminate - to find the best possible parents for a child. Otherwise, you might as well just push kids out of the door and shout "anybody want a kid?"

Yesterday's decision from the Charities Commission means that an adoption agency will no longer be able to say "we think Children need a mother and a father". Regardless of whether you agree that children need a mother and a father, surely you can see that it is not liberal to force the hand of others in this regard.

If you think this stops here think again because the next target is Catholic Schools and possibly even the Catholic Priesthood. Can we "discriminate" against children who are not Catholic in our admissions process? Can we "discriminate" against women in our seminaries?

The blame for this fiasco lays directly at the door of the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales. They refused to campaign against so called "equality legislation" when they had the chance because perhaps they thought their buddies in the establishment would make an exception or something?

Of course, it's not the Bishops who will suffer - it's only children. So don't expect any tears from the Bishops over yesterdays decision.

They. Don't. Care.

“It will be as when a man going on a journey called his servants and entrusted to them his property; to one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them; and he made five talents more. So also, he who had the two talents made two talents more. But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master's money. Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, `Master, you delivered to me five talents; here I have made five talents more.' His master said to him, `Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master.' And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, `Master, you delivered to me two talents; here I have made two talents more.' His master said to him, `Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master.' He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, `Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not winnow; so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.' But his master answered him, `You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sowed, and gather where I have not winnowed? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. So take the talent from him, and give it to him who has the ten talents. For to every one who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.'"

Matthew 25:14-30

If we take God as the Master in this parable then the talents are the gifts of the Spirit which God bestows to each of us. Depending upon Christ's call to each of us some receive many gifts (five talents) for example great saints, others gifts they require as they live their lives (one or two talents) for example your average person. Whether one or many gifts are bestowed it is how we use our gifts that matter. Those enriched with many gifts, who take up God's call are given more as are those like us who are given as much as we can handle. But if we do not choose to accept God's gift's then we are like the man who buried his talent. To accept the gift does not me that we have to become Martyrs but to lovingly follow Christ who joyfully welcomes us deeper into His love.

I like the bit where the man says “Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow”, it seems like the Master is up to foul play but but actually God calls all humanity to Himself, those both Baptised an non. For “Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” Those who accept God's gift's without even realising it and use them are also given more gifts.

As Christians we should not shy away from using the gifts we are given, by placing our trust in the Lord we must take up the challenge even if it leads down roads we do not expect.

This is the Papal Visit website that lifted it's logo from Wikipedia. Very professional, though not as professional as whacking said freely available wiki-graphic on a t-shirt and then asking &163;18 for it.

Did they hope nobody would notice? Just because they flipped it around to put the golden key on the right? Why would they do that? I can't help noticing that on the Vatican website all the golden keys are on the left (e.g. here and here)

The license on Wikipedia allows you to use the graphic "for any purpose" so don't buy the official merchandise - download the highly detailed scalable vector graphic from Wikipedia and make your own.