A Reluctant Sinner

Shrove Tuesday and Feast of the Holy Face of Jesus: "It is your face, O Lord, that I seek; hide not your face" (Ps 27:9)

2012-02-21T00:30:00.019Z

W C Symonds' painting of the Holy Face (1911)
Reproduced with permission from
Reflections: The Westminster
Cathedral Mosaics (Oremus, 2010)

A few weeks ago a friend of mine emailed me to highlight the fact that Pope Pius XII decreed in 1958 that the Feast of the Holy Face of Jesus was to be kept on the day before Ash Wednesday, commonly known as Shrove Tuesday. Of course, the devotion to the Holy Face is an ancient one, which has been observed by many saints since the earliest centuries, St Thérèse of Lisieux (also known as St Thérèse of the Child Jesus and the Holy Face) being the most well-known. It is also a feast that, despite the efforts of some liturgical 'reformers', is still kept in many dioceses throughout the world, including Rome.

The most recent Mass of the Holy Face of Jesus for Shrove Tuesday was approved by Pope John Paul II in 1986, though it is true to say that the feast is mostly kept by those attached to the usus antiquior. It is interesting to note, though, that John Paul II had a personal devotion to the Holy Face, and in a letter issued in 2000, he wrote: "Constant reference to the Holy Face of Christ has sustained the spirituality of those who ... have endeavoured to make reparation for the offences daily committed against the Lord: an endeavour ... to stand beside the endless crosses on which the Son of God continues to be crucified".

Prior to Pope Pius XII's declaration that the faithful should observe the Feast of the Holy Face on the Tuesday before Ash Wednesday, another venerable pontiff, Leo XIII, had also granted his approval to this beautiful devotion. Both men were convinced of the veracity of the personal revelations granted to Sister Marie of St Peter and the Holy Family, who lived in Tours in the mid-nineteenth century. She is said to have had visions of Our Lord during the 1840s, in which he asked her to spread devotion to his Holy Face, adding that in making reparation to an image of his face, many souls would be saved. Sister Marie was also given a prayer by Christ, called the Golden Arrow Holy Face Devotion, which was intended to be used when making reparations on behalf of those who were blasphemers or who deliberately ignored their Sunday obligation to attend Mass.

The Veil of Veronica (a painting) by
Domenico Fetti (1588 - 1623)
(source: Wikimedia Commons)

Spurred on by images of the Veil of Veronica and other ancient and true images of the face of Jesus Christ, Sister Marie of St Peter's apostolate of the Holy Face became very popular amongst the ordinary people of France. Within decades, many lay faithful throughout the world were lighting a candle before an image of the Holy Face and making acts of reparation, especially on behalf of those who blaspheme against God. One of Sister Marie's followers, the Venerable Leo Dupont, soon became the leading exponent of the Devotion to the Holy Face, spending most of his life as the "Apostle of the Holy Face". In fact, it was largely thanks to his efforts that a religious congregation was formed, called Priests of the Holy Face.

It was through Dupont's hard work and the preaching missions of the Holy Face priests that this devotion became extremely popular throughout rural France. By 1889, as the future St Thérèse of Lisieux was entering the religious life, the devotion to the Holy Face was so influential that she herself chose to be called Sister Thérèse of the Child Jesus and the Holy Face. She even composed a special prayer to the Holy Face of Jesus, and also wrote a "Canticle to the Holy Face", which included these pious words: "Jesus, your ineffable image is the star which guides my steps. Ah, you know, your sweet Face is for me Heaven on earth. My love discovers the charms of your Face adorned with tears. I smile through my own tears when I contemplate your sorrows."

In 1898, only three years after St Thérèse had composed her Canticle of the Holy Face, an amateur photographer called Secondo Pia was given permission to photograph the Holy Shroud of Turin - in which, many believe, Our Lord was wrapped for burial. What happened, then, as they say, is history. Whilst examining his photographic negatives, Pia became the first man ever to see the positive image of Jesus's face which has now become so well known throughout the world. This discovery, which suggested that the shroud itself was a negative image of Christ, led to huge renewed interest not only in the ancient relic, but also in the Devotion to the Holy Face.

Thanks mainly to the efforts of another nun, Sister Maria Pierina De Micheli, the image of Our Lord's face as it appears on the Shroud of Turin became the standard point of devotion for all those attached to the Holy Face. Throughout Lent 1936, Sister Maria received several visions of Christ, during which he asked her to spread devotion to the image of his face. It is reported that in one revelation, Jesus told the nun that: “Every time my Face is contemplated I will pour out my love into the heart of those persons, and by means of my Holy Face the salvation of many souls will be obtained”. Wishing that Our Lord's face may appear on a coin, as a reflection of the fact that his image is imprinted on the our souls, just as a worldly king's face appears on coinage, Sister Marie soon began producing a Medal of the Holy Face. These medals, reflecting the glorious nature of the Holy Face, contained the words: "Lord, may the light of your face shine upon us" (Ps 67:2).

Convinced that Jesus Christ himself had commissioned her to spread devotion to his Holy Face and that he wished to establish a feast for this purpose on the day before Lent, Sister Marie Pierina De Micheli spent her last years trying to secure Rome's approval for a Mass of the Holy Face. As it happens, Sister Marie died in 1945, but 13 years later Pope Pius XII eventually established the Feast of the Holy Face, and also formally approved the medal that she had designed. In fact, many have argued that he himself wore the medal and that he also was a great devotee of the image of the Holy Face as seen on the Shroud of Turin - which he officially declared to be worthy of veneration for devotees of the Holy Face of Jesus.

Secondo Pia's photo of the Shroud of Turin
taken in 1898 - which was approved by
Pope Pius XII as an image to be used by
those devoted to the Holy Face of Jesus
(source: Wikimedia Commons)

The Feast of the Holy Face is a highly appropriate way of celebrating what we in the UK normally call Shrove Tuesday. It is a devotion rooted in Sacred Scripture, as well as in the Church's continuous history - which is full of miraculous and divinely created images, such as the Veil of Veronica and the Holy Towel of Edessa. These true representations of the face of Christ have inspired many since the very first centuries of the Christian faith.

As I have already noted, one psalm reflects on the fact that the Lord's face is something that is Heavenly and beautiful - it is a source of salvific light and the focus of our hope: "Let your face shine on us and we shall be saved" (Ps 80:20). It points, also, to the glorious Transfiguration and the Resurrection of Christ: "[A]nd his face was like the sun shining with full force" (Rev 1:16) - "O God, be gracious and bless us and let your face shed its light upon us, so will your ways be known upon earth and all nations learn your saving help" (Ps 67:2).

But, the face of Christ is also one that is familiar with sorrow, one that was spat upon, struck, bruised and mocked: "I gave my back to those who struck me, and my cheeks to those who pulled out the beard; I did not hide my face from insult and spitting" (Is 50:6). It is the sacred and bloodied face of Good Friday, as well as that gloriously bright face of Easter. As Lent is a time when we unite ourselves to Our Lord's suffering in the hope that we may share in his joy at Easter, it seems to me that the Feast of the Holy Face, then, is a most perfect means for the Church to prepare herself for the next few weeks.

The image reproduced at the beginning of this post in order to portray the Holy Face is taken from the original design by W C Symonds for the mosaic of the Holy Face in Westminster Cathedral's Shrine of the Sacred Heart and St Michael. Symonds had been commissioned to design this mosaic by Archbishop (later Cardinal) Francis Bourne, and the donor who gave the money to fund this project was called Mrs Evelyn Murray. She was fond of the images of the Holy Face that were based on the Veil of Veronica, copies of which could be found at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries in various London churches - such as Farm Street. Her intention was to have a similar depiction of the Holy Face in the new Cathedral.

The mosaic of the Holy Face of Jesus as found
in the Sacred Heart Shrine in Westminster
Cathedral - This is a photo of a photo that originally
appeared in Reflections: The Westminster
Cathedral Mosaics (see above)

It seems to me, though, that W C Symonds, who worked on the preliminary paining just before his own death in 1911, was heavily influenced by the recent photographs of the Shroud of Turin - which, contrary to Veronica's Veil, show the Holy Face after Christ's death. In the end, and because Murray disliked Symonds' planned image, the design was revamped. This is why the Chapel of the Sacred Heart's mosaic of the Holy Face actually depicts Jesus's face before his Crucifixion (right), rather than Symonds' "death mask" as it has been called. Personally, I prefer the original painting, even if it is rather dated in artistic terms.

I would like to end this post by urging my readers to join me in attempting to make good use of the devotion to the Holy Face of Jesus - both today and throughout our lives. It is one that I have recently become attached to, and one that I dearly wish to know more about. What better time, then, than on the Feast of the Holy Face to make a resolution to gaze on Christ's face in this world, that we may see him face to face in the one to come? And after our Lenten journey comes to an end in a few weeks, may we all come to experience the light of Our Lord's face shining upon us as we dare to walk with Mary through that garden near the gloriously empty tomb.

The Mandylion of Edessa
Photo by Wolfgang M (published under
a creative commons licence)
(source: Wikimedia Commons)

Of you my heart has spoken:
"Seek his face."
It is your face, O Lord, that I seek;
hide not your face.
Dismiss not your servant in anger;
you have been my help. (Ps 27:8-9)

An extremely enjoyable and successful second meeting of the Guild of Blessed Titus Brandsma...

2012-02-18T19:00:00.015Z

For good food, good company and good liturgy,
Our Lady of the Rosary, Blackfen is the place to be!
Taken during lunch at today's Guild of Bl Titus event

The Guild of Blessed Titus Brandsma for Catholic bloggers and those who use the new social media gathered at Our Lady of the Rosary, Blackfen, today for its second official meeting. All those who came along to this event were warmly welcomed by the parish and its parish priest, the well-known and acclaimed blogger, Fr Tim Finigan (The Hermeneutic of Continuity).

The day began with Holy Mass celebrated in the Lady Chapel, followed by Adoration and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament on the high altar. This period of worship was followed by a talk by one of the Guild members.

Unfortunately, our guest speaker, Fr Sam Medley SOLT (Medley Minute), was not able to be with us, so the Catholic journalist and writer, Mary O'Regan (The Path Less Taken), graciously volunteered to address the Guild in his place. Fr Sam had planned to speak on the theme of blogging as a way of enhancing ecclesial communion, but Mary developed this idea in her own way, concentrating on the relationship that exists between print journalism and the new media. Being both a blogger and a journalist, Mary O'Regan was aptly qualified to speak on this interesting subject. Her informative and entertaining talk left her listeners with much food for thought!

Lunch was a time for catching up, laughing, sharing stories and discussing various aspects of Church life and the Catholic blogging community. The food was superb - really wonderful, as always! In fact, if parishes were ever to receive awards for culinary excellence, Our Lady of the Rosary, Blackfen, would probably be given a Michelin star!

After lunch, about 15 Catholic bloggers - plus some others who use the new media (Facebook, YouTube, etc) or who comment on blogs - met for the second meeting of the Guild since it was formed last year. Amongst some of the issues raised at the meeting were: the contribution made by Catholic bloggers to the New Evangelisation, how members could make better use of the Guild blog, and the best way for Catholics to respond to cyber bullying. It was also decided that the Guild should next meet in another part of the country, so as to make sure that members from outside London and the South-East are able to attend future events.

Mary O'Regan addresses the Guild of Bl Titus Brandsma
(Photo: (c) Mac McLernon at Mulier Fortis)

It was also noted during the meeting that several apologies had been sent, and that many internationally well-known bloggers, such as Tito Edwards (Editor of The Pulp.it) as well as the blogging members of the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer, had expressed a desire to come to the next Guild event. During our prayers before and after the meeting, members of the Guild remembered those who could not be with us due to ill health - especially Fr Sam Medley and Stuart James (eChurch).

Here is a list of those Catholic bloggers who were present at the Guild of Bl Titus Brandsma's meeting today - it does not include participants who do not have their own blog, or those who use Twitter or Facebook only: -

Me (A Reluctant Sinner), Richard Collins (Linen on the Hedgerow), Hilaire Belloc, Laurence England (That The Bones You Have Crushed May Thrill), Paul Priest (On The Side Of The Angels), Karen Horn (Gem of the Ocean), Plain Talking, Mac McLernon (Mulier Fortis), Anthony Radice (A Tiny Son of Mary), Fr Tim Finigan (The Hermeneutic of Continuity) and Mary O'Regan (The Path Less Taken). Annie Elizabeth (Defende nos in proelio) was present in the morning, but had to leave before lunch. Two future bloggers called Therese and Jimin were also present, as was a reader on Catholic Answers, called Sonia. One or two blog followers, such as Roy Hobson, also made it to the Guild meeting.

The day ended with the public recitation of the Rosary - which was more than a fitting way of bringing the Guild meeting to a close, especially seeing that we had gathered at a church dedicated to Our Lady of the Rosary!

I would like to thank to all who supported this event, those who travelled far and wide to be at it, and, of course, Fr Tim Finigan and his parishioners, especially those who helped with the liturgies and cooked and served the excellent lunch!

Dawkins failed his own orthodoxy test - The atheist's latest assault on faith only proves his own lack of humility

2012-02-15T09:20:00.019Z

Maybe Richard Dawkins (photo) should work
for the Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith, seeing that he has now
become the arbiter of Christian orthodoxy!
(Photo attributed to David Shankbourne and
published under a creative commons licence -
source: Wikimedia)

Richard Dawkins, the tragic high priest of atheism, graced the BBC yesterday morning to announce to the world that most of those who self-identify as Christian in Britain have failed his Christian orthodoxy test. In an attempt to prove that most UK Christians (normally put at about 70% of the population) are not "real" ones, and that Christianity is therefore not that widely subscribed to in Britain, the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science commissioned an Ipos MORI poll to examine the supposed orthodoxy of Christ's followers.

Needless to say, the questions asked in this poll were loaded in such a way that the the survey's inevitable conclusion would be that most Christians aren't Christian! From reading the findings of this RDFRS/Ipos MORI poll, it also appears to me that the Dawkins Foundation - like its founder - really doesn't know what Christianity is.

It is possible to be an ignorant Christian, for example, or a heterodox one. And although heretics were once declared anathema and therefore cast out of the Church completely, one could not deny that they themselves may have remained sincere followers of Christ in their own hearts. Arius was a Christian, even if he had fallen into heresy - in fact his error influenced a large sway of the Church in the forth century. Many good and holy men and women, such as Julian of Norwich, who was praised by Pope Benedict XVI in a recent address, would probably have failed stringent orthodoxy tests - Julian claimed that God was never angry, for example. In the early Church, too, when many dogmas had not yet been formally defined, many martyrs and saints may not have been able to check their faith against the canons of later Councils.

Without the slightest hint of irony, though, Richard Dawkins now believes that a set of rules drawn up by his Foundation can determine who is or isn't a "real" Christian. Only a deluded man would proclaim himself an atheist on the one hand, yet presume to know more than others about theology or spirituality on the other. Thankfully, this Dawkinsian delusion is actually leading more souls to Christ as ordinary people see through his flawed reasoning. Referring to the findings of his Foundation's poll on yesterday's Today programme, Richard Dawkins seemed convinced that it has now been objectively confirmed that most Christians aren't really Christian. One couldn't invent such madness!

Dawkins' understanding of Christianity is rather eccentric or selective to say the least. He is obsessed with the Bible, for example - as if all the disciples of Jesus Christ belong to some post-Reformation sola scriptura kind of sect. He forgets that throughout the centuries many, many believers in Christ weren't that bothered about having a Bible at home - they couldn't afford one for starters. Maybe this extreme Protestant view of Christianity that Dawkins appears obsessed with reflects his own upbringing, or the culture of his boyhood? It doesn't conform to that simple and child-like Christian faith which has been and continues to be lived out by so many throughout the world.

Is reading the Bible a necessary mark of being a Christian?

One of the questions in the poll, as well as the significance placed on it by Richard Dawkins, suggests that the well-known atheist believes that a person must have read the Bible at least once in the past year in order to be a "real" Christian. Like so many others, I find this assertion frankly bizarre.

The New Testament as we now know it wasn't canonically approved by the Church until at least the forth-century, whilst the vast majority of Christians throughout the Church's history never even touched copies of Sacred Scripture -their knowledge of Biblical stories and events would have been passed on to them through culture, plays, paintings, songs and sermons. Until recently, most people wouldn't have had the opportunity read the Bible even if hey desired to do so - either because they couldn't read or because they couldn't find the money to buy one. Until the late Middle Ages, even extremely wealthy men and women didn't have private copies of Sacred Scripture in their homes. According to Dawkins, though, all these people could not have been "real" Christians. An atheist he may be, but it does strike me that Dawkins' non-theistic beliefs are a reaction to a truncated form of Protestantism, from which his ideas about Christianity seem to derive.

Although the private reading of Scripture can lead to sanctification, it is by no means essential for salvation. Reading the Bible at least once a year is not a defining sign of being a follower of Jesus Christ, even if the high priest of atheism has declared it to be so. And, although I am deeply interested in Biblical scholarship, and can read the New Testament in Greek, I most definitely don't consider that my relationship with Christ rests on being as Biblically proficient as St Jerome. Neither does it depend upon being able to quote Scripture chapter and verse like some obsessive Evangelical - many of whom it would seem share Dawkins' belief that Catholics are not real Christians.

Dawkins' conviction that those 60% of self-identifying Christians surveyed by his Foundation who haven't read parts of the Bible during the past year are not "real" followers of Christ only really proves his own arrogance. It also points to Dawkins' own lack of knowledge concerning the things of God. These self-identified Christians may not be Biblical scholars, they may not be particularly devout, but one cannot assume or assert that because of this they are not disciples of Jesus Christ.

Must we be devout to be disciples of the Lord?

Having said that, some of the RDFRS/Ipsos MORI poll's findings do suggest that Christians in the UK are not very engaged in the practice of their faith. Apparently, only 49% of the nation's Christians attended a church service in the past 12 months, whilst 12% claim that they have never attended one at all. Seeing that the eremitic life is an increasingly popular vocation within the Church, though, we could speculate that many of Britain's Christians are choosing to live a desert spirituality, outside the camp so to speak? Yes, not many of the baptised regularly go to church, but this does not necessarily mean that they are no longer Christian.

During times of persecution, many Christians have found it difficult to worship in churches - not being able to do so did not lessen their allegiance to Christ. In fact, it probably confirmed it. Those who live in modern Britain, though not persecuted for their faith, are hounded by society's obsession with work, money and constant consumerism. Is it any wonder then that, even if they may want to go to a Sunday service, many people nowadays believe that they neither have the time nor energy to do so? A subtle form of anti-Christianity within society or scandals within the Church itself may have put many people off going to church, but this doesn't mean that they have stopped believing in Christ.

It is true to say that Christians who have not been formed properly or given good catechises, but who do have a desire to be followers of Jesus, cannot be expected to know the importance of corporate worship or attendance at church services, such as Mass. It is no fault of their own if they are ignorant of the basics concerning what is expected of them as disciples of Christ. In that respect, it is very difficult for any of us who may have been granted the grace of a good understanding of the Christian faith to find fault with those who do wish to follow Christ more dearly but who just don't seem to know how to go about it. It is the active members of the Church who are often the ones at fault when those who call themselves Christian or who wish to be disciples of Jesus have not been instructed properly. The fact, though, that many of Britain's Christians may not have been taught the basics does not mean that they are not - to a certain extent, at least - disciples of the Lord.

Would you refer to yourself as "religious" in an opinion poll? I probably wouldn't.

Much was made by Richard Dawkins of a finding in his Foundation's poll which suggested that 50% of British Christians do not consider themselves to be religious. But what does it mean to be "religious"? I don't think of myself as being particularly religious, though I am sure that my agnostic sister - for one - probably thinks of me as someone who is obsessed with religion. I also know from my time amongst Pentecostal and Evangelical Christians in the 1990s that many charismatic "Bible believers" do not wish to be tainted (as they see it) with term "religious". Many of these characters view being religious as a "Papist" or "Catholic" thing, and therefore usually insist on identifying themselves as people of "faith" as opposed to followers of a "religion". Although these Evangelicals misunderstand the meaning of the word religion, confusing it with being Pharisaical, many ordinary Christians would also not feel comfortable in calling themselves religious - because to do so implies a kind of spiritual pride or boastfulness. Yet another flaw in Dawkins' Christian orthodoxy test.

Have we ever had a time when all Christians were 'orthodox'?

Worryingly, it also seems that many people who consider themselves to be Christian do not actually believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God - 49% according to the poll. But yet again this just proves that Christians in Britain have not received a proper grounding in the faith. It also points to the fact that the UK has been in schism if not heresy for centuries. Orthodox Christian teachings are bound to have been watered-down, if not destroyed, during the past 400 years of Protestantism and relativism. But this is not the fault of the people who live in Britain today. Without having been given proper instruction in the faith and after having been subject to a State Church that is more in tune with the Zeitgeist than the Holy Ghost, is it any wonder that many of our Christian brothers and sisters lack a basic knowledge of the faith or have become heterodox Christians?

In the early centuries of the Church, many Christians continued to keep pagan festivals or could seem to be rather à la carte in the way they chose to worship or believe - the Emperor Constantine being one such example. (Although Constantine convened one of the Church's most important Ecumenical Councils at Nicea, he remained unbaptised until the very end of his life.) It is also good to reflect on the fact that the most infamous heretics throughout the ages have still maintained that they were Christian - even if they have fallen away from that gold standard of truth which is found within the Catholic Church. And who knows whether they really remained followers of Christ or not? Surely that is a matter for them and Christ himself - who famously said: "whoever is not against us is for us" (cf Mk 9:40). It is definitely not a matter upon which Richard Dawkins - who does not even believe in God - is qualified to judge, even if he claims that his Foundation's commissioned poll has done all the objective judging for him!

Dawkins v Fraser - The rumble on the radio

Many have already noted that during his appearance on the BBC yesterday, Dawkins was hoisted by his own petard. It happened whilst he was discussing the poll's findings with a former Canon of St Paul's Cathedral, Rev Giles Fraser - a man whose own theology is considered unorthodox by many. Despite his theological failings - I, for one, am no fan of his pro-gay stance - it must be said that Fraser really did a good job in defending the Christian faith and highlighting Dawkins' delusion live on air.

During the broadcast, Richard Dawkins smugly claimed that 64% of the self-identified Christians polled were not able to identify Matthew as the first book in the New Testament. The inference being that these people could not therefore have been "real" Christians and should not be considered as such. In response, Giles Fraser challenged Dawkins by asking him to prove by the same measure that he is in fact a Darwinian. For the benefit of those who did not hear it, here is a transcript of the conversation between these two men: -

Fraser: Richard, if I said to you what is the full title of The Origin Of Species, I’m sure you could tell me that.

Dawkins: Yes I could.

Fraser: Go on then.

Dawkins: On the Origin of Species...Uh... With, oh, God... On the Origin of Species... there is a sub-title with respect to the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life....

Seeing that Dawkins didn't appear to know the full title of Darwin's seminal book (he missed out "by Means of Natural Selection"), are we able assume that he knows nothing about the nineteenth-century biologist? Just because the high priest of atheism was not able to clearly state that On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life is the original and complete title for Charles Darwin's book, does it mean that he is also no longer a believer in evolution? Also, Dawkins also sought help from God during this little interaction, does this demonstrate that he now believes in Him? To all three questions, we may properly answer "of course not".. Fraser 1 - Dawkins 0.

It was good to hear Dawkins failing his own test live on the radio. It assured all those Christians who, like me, do not know all the ins and outs of every single doctrine of the faith that knowing about Christ is not the same as wishing, even in the tiniest sense, to follow him. Being a disciple of Jesus Christ is not about passing a theoretical test, it is more about seeking out the truth in, with and through that love he has for us. It is about saying a simple yes to Christ, who is the one who chooses us .... Oh, and one of the defining marks of being a Christian - or a member of the Church, at least - is to have received the Sacrament of Baptism; which, thankfully, is what 72% of British Christians surveyed by Dawkins also believe!

Six British Government ministers travel to the Vatican for talks with the Pope today - And their Muslim leader is determined to defend Europe's Christian heritage

2012-02-14T00:15:00.022Z

Baroness Warsi - a Muslim defender
of Christian Europe's heritage of faith
(source: Wikimedia -
published under a open govt licence)

Today, six British Government ministers as well as the Archbishop of Westminster and a large delegation of clerics and civil servants will journey to the Vatican. Their visit, which is primarily a follow up to the Pope's successful trip to the UK in September 2010, will also mark 30 years of restored full diplomatic links between the Holy See and Britain. Before their visit comes to an end tomorrow, the ministers will be received in audience by Pope Benedict XVI.

Led by the Muslim Cabinet Minister without Portfolio, Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, the ministerial group will discuss many issues with the Pope and his Curial officials, ranging from climate change and arms proliferation to religious tolerance and interfaith dialogue. It also seems that a possible Papal visit to Northern Ireland may be on the cards when the Pope's meets with another member of the UK delegation, the Northern Ireland Secretary of State, Owen Patterson. Already, some are speculating Pope Benedict XVI may wish to cross the border into Northern Ireland if he does decide to visit Dublin in the next few months (more on that here).

According to UTV News, the Primate of All Ireland and the Archbishop of Armagh, Cardinal Seán Brady, has speculated that the inclusion of Owen Paterson in the delegation is noteworthy. The same news channel went on to quote the Deputy Editor of the Irish Catholic, Michael Kelly, who also believes that the UK Government's ministerial outing to Rome signifies the possibility of a Papal visit both to Northern Ireland as well as the Replublic of Ireland.

Michael Kelly is reported to have told UTV that: "Mr Paterson is quite different from the other [ministers], one wouldn't imagine that he would be conventionally linked to any talks that would be going on between the British government and the Vatican so I think this is a clear indication that the Vatican want to talk, obviously about what is going on in the peace process, the developments that have been going on there." Kelly also added: "But obviously in the context of a twenty minute visit, they are going to be discussing the possibility of the Pope visiting Northern Ireland, that's very much part of the Vatican agenda."

The group of UK delegates from the British Government will also include the openly homosexual Alan Duncan, who is the Minister for International Development. Another politician known for supporting homosexual causes, Jeremy Hunt, who is the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, will also be meeting the Holy Father during the next two days. The Minster of State for Energy and Climate Change, Greg Barker, will also join the delegation. Barker is alleged to have told an audience at the University of South Carolina last year that the current British Government is "making cuts that Margaret Thatcher, back in the 1980s, could only have dreamed of."

Although man known for supporting "gay rights" is Terry Sanderson, president of the rather eccentric National Secular Society. Although he has already criticised the British Government's desire to maintain links with the Holy See ("the last theocracy in Europe" as he calls it), the UK delegation's leader spoke out today in defence of faith communities and against the bigoted form of militant secularism that seems to be on the rise in the West. Despite the protestations of fringe atheists, then, it seems safe to say that the British Government is committed to working with the Catholic Church for the common good of all.

Writing in today's Telegraph, Baroness Warsi said: "I profoundly believe that faith has a vital and important role to play in modern society. But mistakenly, faith has been neglected, undermined – and yes, even attacked – by governments in recent years." In her article, she also mentions that the Pope had urged her to continue in her efforts to confront secularism, saying: "[the] Holy Father ... told me [in 2010] that he had heard what I had been saying and urged me to carry on making my case robustly. So today, I am taking a renewed message to the Vatican City; one which I want to ring out beyond the Vatican walls."

In her article, which is well worth reading, the Muslim peer also wrote: "I will be arguing that to create a more just society, people need to feel stronger in their religious identities and more confident in their creeds. In practice this means individuals not diluting their faiths and nations not denying their religious heritages." Using words that many would dearly love to hear from the lips of our Catholic leaders, Warsi bravely went on to say: "I will be arguing for Europe to become more confident and more comfortable in its Christianity. The point is this: the societies we live in, the cultures we have created, the values we hold and the things we fight for all stem from centuries of discussion, dissent and belief in Christianity."

It comes to something when a Muslim politician seems to care more for Europe's Christian heritage than many of our own bishops. I am sure that many clerics, Catholic or Protestant, would also like to speak up in defence of Christianity, but they often seem too scared to do so. In our increasingly intolerant secular culture, even Church leaders can sometime be too frightened to speak the truth lest they cause "offence". It is so refreshing, then, to see that a Muslim woman like Warsi - who is a politician that I do not always see eye-to-eye with - actually has the guts to point out that the rise of militant secularism within European societies is "at its core and in its instincts...deeply intolerant."

Baroness Warsi definitely seems to be in fundamental agreement with the Pope when it comes to the dangers of relativism and secularism. However, I don't expect that most of those other politicians who will be travelling with Warsi to the Vatican will share her views or ideological drive when it comes to respecting faith in public life. But I do sometimes wonder if some of our bishops - who should be singing from the same hymn-sheet as the Holy Father - will ever find the guts to speak up for truth with the same passion and concern as the current British Cabinet Minister without Portfolio.

In the reformed, or post-Conciliar, General Roman Calendar, today happens to be the Feast of Saints Cyril and Methodius, who were declared co-patrons of Europe by Pope John Paul II in 1980. May their prayers help bring about the conversion of Europe - that all men and women may know that true liberation which comes only through faith in Jesus Christ!

One of Germany's greatest football clubs is to offer Pope Benedict XVI an honorary membership

2012-02-11T00:15:00.010Z

Mia San Mia - We Are Who We Are
The badge and motto of FC Bayern Munich
(source: Wikipedia - published as fair use)

The game of football's been in the news a lot recently here in the UK, especially now as the England team looks for a new manager after Fabio Capello's resignation earlier this week. The former England manager could sometimes be seen attending Mass, often in Latin, in and around central London's Catholic churches. One doubts whether Capello's successor will also be a man with a love for the Sacrifice of the Mass.

Yesterday, Uli Hoeneß, the president of Bayern Munich, Germany's most successful football team, spoke of his desire to offer a lifetime honorary club membership to Pope Benedict XVI. Speaking on the German sports tevelvision channel, Sport1, Hoeneß said that he would not hesitate to have the Bavarian born Pontiff as a member of Bayern Munich, saying: "If he gives us the word, we will go to him and bring him an honorary membership."

According to the soccer new site, Goal, Hoeneß would like to have the Pope as a member of his football club for many reasons, but especially as it might help the team win God's favour from time to time! It also appears that Pope Benedict XVI has been a life-long supporter of Bayern Munich - a club that has a large following amongst Bavaria's mainly Catholic population.

Pope John Paul II was made an honorary member of two football clubs during his pontificate, Borussia Dortmund and Schalke. He is also reputed to have been a skilled goalkeeper in his youth. John Paul II also formed the Vatican's own national football side in 1978. Since then, this team has been known to play the odd international game, mainly friendlies against other small city states. The Vatican City national side also plays against local teams in and around Italy, and even beat a team from Rome's Carabinieri Station 9 - 1 last year.

Whilst Pope Benedict XVI may not posses his predecessor's excellent soccer skills, he does appreciate the sport's value in helping form young people in their desire to become useful members of society. During an audience with Italian footballers in January 2008, the Pope is reported to have said: "The sport of football can be a vehicle of education for the values of honesty, solidarity and fraternity, especially for the younger generation."

Let's hope, then, that Pope Benedict XVI enjoys his honorary membership of Bayern Munich. Who knows, he might even get to see them play against the Vatican's national team one day!

"Within twelve months, the Pope will die" - What are we to make of these alleged words of Cardinal Paolo Romeo?

2012-02-10T19:30:00.037Z

Archbishop Paolo Romeo -
Prophet, indiscreet cleric or falsely accused?
Attributed to Paolo Baroli and published under
a creative commons licence
(source: Wikimedia Commons)

Some pretty startling and bizarre revelations predicting an assassination of Pope Benedict XVI were made in an Italian newspaper today. The paper, Il Fatto Quotidiano, which is known for landing exclusives, published parts of a secret report that was intended for Pope Benedict XVI’s eyes only. The contents of this document, variously described as a "prophecy" or "ramblings", detail a conversation held last year between Cardinal Paolo Romeo, Archbishop of Palermo, and some Italian and Chinese businessmen.

It is claimed in this secret file that the Cardinal Archbishop of Palermo, who had a long and distinguished career as a Vatican diplomat before his recent appointment as leader of Sicily's Catholics, told some businessmen and Chinese guests during a recent trip to China that the Pope would be killed by the end of this year.

Whilst visiting the Far East, the Cardinal is alleged to have made this prediction with such confidence that some of his listeners suspected that he himself was involved in a specific plot to assassinate Pope Benedict XVI. At least one of those present therefore reported the Cardinal’s words to Rome, and a special report on the incident - complied by Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos and written in German in an attempt to stop it from being leaked - was presented to the Pope on 30 December last year.

According to Il Fatto Quotidiano, the report was initially handed in to Mgr George Ganswein, the Pope’s private secretary, and Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican’s Secretary of State. It was they who then passed it onto the Holy Father. The newspaper did not reveal the source for this leak, though it emphasised that the document is genuine.

Bizarrely, the top secret file also details some of Cardinal Romeo’s personal concerns regarding top-level political machinations within the Vatican. It was within this context that Il Fatto Quotidiano published Romeo's alleged claim that certain members of the Roman Curia with designs on the Papacy want the Pope dead "within twelve months" - which would mean by November of this year.

It's reported that the Archbishop of Palermo - who also happens to be the former Papal Nuncio to Haiti, Colombia and Canada - then went on to allege that Pope Benedict XVI "cannot stand" his Secretary of State, Tarcisio Bertone. In fact, Cardinal Bertone is a man whose name has increasingly been linked to numerous allegations of shenanigans within the Holy See in recent times. Many high ranking clerics, including the current Papal Nuncio to the United States, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, appear to have claimed that Bertone's links to shady deals threaten the Vatican's integrity.

The document also suggests that Romeo believes Pope Benedict XVI is well aware of Cardinal Bertone’s apparent thirst for power, as well as his alleged unsuitability to sit on the Throne of St Peter. In fact, according to this leaked file, which is meant to be an eye-witness account of Cardinal Romeo’s words to the Italian and Chinese businessmen in Beijing, it is the Archbishop of Palermo's impression that the Pope would prefer to remove Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone from his post as de facto prime minister of the Holy See. According to Il Fatto Quotidiano, Romeo believes that the Holy Father cannot act on his alleged wishes because his Secretary of State is currently too powerful.

The Pope’s press secretary, Fr Federico Lombardi SJ, has referred to this document as “something that is so far from reality” that he didn't even want to comment on it. Having said that, he did not deny its existence when pressed to do so by a journalist. The rationalist in me tends to agree with Lombardi. Two other words he is supposed to have used to describe Cardinal Romeo's alleged comments are "ramblings" and "delusional".

If the comments attributed to Romeo were really made by him, then they do seem bizarre at best and indiscreet at worst. It is important to note that the Archbishop of Palermo himself has denied even saying these things whilst in China, stating that the words attributed to him were "absolutely without basis." If this is the case, why did some in the Vatican take it upon themselves to create a report on the alleged conversation, and how on earth did such a secret file find its way onto the pages of an Italian newspaper?

As interesting as this revelation may be, it is fundamentally a very unreliable one – the thoughts of a witness interpreted by a vested third party and leaked by another person or group to the newspapers. In that sense, I doubt that we should take this file too seriously, and I am tempted to treat this story as the piece of conspiratorial gossip that it undoubtedly is.

St Malacy's Prophecy of the Popes
(source: Wikimedia)

Having said that, it is interesting to note that another ecclesiastical prophet, St Malachy, is meant to have predicted the fate of the Papacy right up to the last Successor of St Peter. According to a 16th century document attributed to Malachy, called the Prophecy of the Popes, Pope Benedict XVI will be the Church’s penultimate Roman Pontiff and his successor will be the last pope before Christ's return to earth to judge the living and the dead. According to the Prophecy of the Popes, the last pontiff's encrypted title will be "Petrus Romanus" - Peter the Roman.

Whilst the Prophecy of the Popes has always been attributed to the 12th century Archbishop of Armagh, St Malachy, some have suggested that this ecclesiastical set of predictions may well be the work of St Philip Neri, who many believe was able to see into the future. Others believe that the predictions contained in the Prophecy are actually the speculations of St Malachy himself. Yet many others suspect the whole thing to be a complete fraud, written by a supporter of various Renaissance claimants to the Papacy. Some have even suggested Nostradamus as a possible author for the Prophecy.

Also, whilst some of the short mottoes or two-word Latin titles used to predict the pontiffs really do seem to fit the bill, others make no sense at all. Pope Benedict XVI is referred to as "Gloria olivae" (The Glory of the olive) in the Prophecy, though I for one have not yet come across a satisfactory explanation that links Joseph Raztinger with these supposedly prophetic words. Others, though, seem convinced that “olive” may refer to his papal name, Benedict, and to the fact that the Olivetians form one of the branches of the Benedictine family. As far as I’m concerned, such attempts to make the current Pope fit the motto assigned to him by Malachy (or St Philip or Nostradamus or whoever may have actually composed the forecast) just prove the Prophecy's unreliability.

Having said that, now that the document leaked by Il Fatto Quotidiano has openly revealed that some Vatican officials seem concerned about Cardinal Bertone's apparent ambition to succeed Pope Benedict XVI, it is interesting to note that the current Secretary of State to His Holiness has been spoken of for a number of years now as the most likely candidate to next occupy the Throne of St Peter. By the way, anxieties over Bertone's suitability to lead the Church or be in the position that he now occupies, have also been voiced by the world-famous Vaticanologist, Sandro Magister (see here).

Whether we should take such things as the Prophecy of the Popes seriously or not, here is what “Malachy” wrote concerning the last Roman Pontiff, the man who, according to him, will reign after the current Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI:

Peter the Roman,
who will nourish the sheep in many tribulations;
when they are finished, the city of seven hills will be destroyed,
and the dreadful judge will judge his people.
The end.

In the vast majority of cases, the Latin titles used in the Prophecy of the Popes link the one who is predicted pontiff to his own birthplace or to his personal name before election to the Papacy. An example of this being Innocent XII, whom Malachy called “Rastrum in porta” (Rake in the door), and whose family surname was Rastrello (“rake” in Italian).

But what of “Petrus Romanus” (Peter the Roman)?

Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone’s second name is Pietro (Peter), and he was born in Romano (the Roman) Canavese in Piedmont. If we are to take the Prophecy of the Popes seriously, then - which I don't think we should - could it be that Bertone is Peter the Roman, the man who will reign over the Church's most terrifying persecution and whose pontificate will herald the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ?

The Irish Church seems divided over a possible Papal visit. Despite the prophets of doom, I believe that the Holy Father should and will attend the Dublin Eucharistic Congress

2012-02-10T13:50:00.017Z

(source: Wikimedia Commons / NASA)

It is my personal belief that Pope Benedict XVI will visit Ireland this year. He may even travel to the closing ceremony of the 50th Eucharistic Congress in Dublin. He will do this despite the prophets of doom in his own Church, and also because he knows that the ordinary Mass-goers in Éire are currently in need a form of pastoral care than only the Successor of St Peter can offer. His visit may only last hours, but will certainly boost the morale of his flock in Ireland for the next few decades.

Sadly, the Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, recently downplayed the prospect of a visit to Ireland by the Pope. During an interview with RTÉ, the Archbishop stated that he felt a Papal visit to coincide with the Eucharistic Congress would be premature in light of the recent clerical child abuse scandals. These criminal acts by priests, sometimes involving the collusion of Ireland's bishops and the Irish state, have led to a general feeling of anger against the Church in Ireland. In what many consider to be a cynical or frankly unjust move, the Irish government has also openly criticised the Holy See, accusing it of being a primary facilitator of the scandals - effectively blaming Rome for Ireland's problem.

According to the Irish Examiner, it seems that one of Diarmuid Martin's main fears concerning a Papal visit to Ireland in June is that it may lead to protests by those opposed to the Church, which would then detract from the whole purpose of the Congress. It appears that this is a fear shared by some of Martin's brother bishops in the Irish hierarchy. But these concerns fail to acknowledge the reality of the situation. I am confident that most Irish people know that the blame for clerical child abuse does not rest with Pope Benedict XVI, who has done more than anyone else to remove the filth that has infected the Catholic Church in recent times. The people of Ireland are not naïve.

I believe that Archbishop Martin's cautionary words also display a certain lack of trust in God's grace and in the ability of the Successor of St Peter to transform negative situations into positive ones. Before the Pope's visit to the UK in 2010, it is true to say that many within the Church's hierarchy feared the worst - so much so that at times it even appeared as if some bishops couldn't be bothered to support the Papal visit. Yet, when the prophets of doom in the media and the Church were confounded by the success of Pope Benedict XVI's visit and by the sheer numbers of faithful Catholics and others who came out to greet the Holy Father, they were the first ones to stress that they had always known it would go well! Such is life. Such is politics.

To be fair, when speaking on RTÉ Radio, Dr Martin actually said that he hoped the Pope would visit Ireland one day. He then went on, though, to seemingly dampen any welcome by basically suggesting that the Holy Father shouldn't attend the Eucharistic Congress, as the timing would be wrong. Referring to the clerical child abuse scandals that have hit Irish Catholicism in recent years, the Archbishop of Dublin cautioned that the Church was not yet "at that stage" whereby a Papal visit would "fit into the overall timetable of the renewal of the Church in Ireland."

The Archbishop of Dublin went on to say that the Holy Father himself had suggested that any visit by him would have to take into consideration the state of the Irish Church before it could bear effective fruit. In publicly stating that the Church has not yet reformed herself sufficiently to deal with a Papal visit, it seems that Diarmuid Martin's comments during his interview on RTÉ suggest that he would rather the Pope did not attend the 50th Eucharistic Congress in June. What Dr Martin appeared to be saying was: the Pope is welcome to visit Ireland, but not yet.

Having said all that, it seems that the Primate of All Ireland and the Archbishop of Armagh, Cardinal Seán Brady, actually contradicted the Archbishop of Dublin during a separate interview on Wednesday - in which he stated that the timing is right for a Papal visit to Ireland.

Speaking to the Irish Catholic in Rome, Cardinal Brady's spoke some words that contrast those offered by Diarmuid Martin. Brady told the newspaper that he heard Archbishop Martin's comments concerning any possible visit by the Pope to Ireland. He then went on to offer a different view to that given by the Archbishop of Dublin. Here is what he said: "My hope is that the Pope will come. I was listening to Archbishop Martin at the weekend about whether the moment is right or not. My hope is that the moment would be right."

Cardinal Brady went on, though, to state that he had not been given any indication by the Vatican as to whether or not the Pope would be attending the Eucharistic Congress, or if the Holy Father has any other plans to visit Ireland later in the year.

It seems that a difference in attitude has opened in the Irish Church. It is a division between those, like Brady, who appear to hold onto that Christian attitude of optimism, and those, like Martin, who seem more concerned with public opinion and the political spirit of the age. Is it any wonder, then, that Pope Benedict chose to raise Seán Brady to the cardinalate, whilst the red hat has not yet been offered to Martin?

It seems to me that the Pope is still actively considering attending the 50th Eucharistic Congress in Dublin this June. If he were not, I am sure that Rome would have clarified the situation by now. The fact that there are only four months left before the Congress and that the Pope hasn't ruled out a visit to Ireland this year seems encouraging to me. I may be wrong, of course.

In the past, Pope Benedict XVI has often travelled to shrines or events in Italy that only involve a short journey from Rome. Like his predecessors, he has sometimes made visits that only last a few hours or an afternoon. In that sense, and seeing that Rome is only a three-hour flight from Dublin, I can see no reason whatsoever why the Holy Father could not visit Ireland just for the Eucharistic Congress's closing ceremony. In so doing, costs would be kept to the minimum, unjust and angry protests would be contained within a specific time-frame, and - more importantly - the Irish people would have the opportunity to see and hear the Successor of St Peter on their soil.

It is undeniable that the Pope feels a close attachment to the people of Éire, and that his presence as Vicar of Jesus Christ is something that can turn negative situations into positive ones. Having the Pope present for few short hours in Dublin would bring about more healing to the Church and people of Ireland than can be achieved through decades of apologies and attempts at reconciliation by the Irish Church's own hierarchy.

Unlike some in the episcopacy, Pope Benedict XVI is not so much concerned by image or politics, by media representations or unjust anti-Papal vitriol. His primary concern is the care of that flock of sinners and saints which Christ Jesus has entrusted into his care. For that reason, then, I believe that the Pope may very well surprise the prophets of doom by turning up for the closing liturgy of the 50th Eucharistic Congress to be held on 17 June in Dublin's Croke Park Stadium. If he does, Ireland will rejoice, despite the pessimism of that nation's leaders - ecclesiastical or otherwise.

Rowan Williams to pray with Pope Benedict XVI in the Church of San Gregorio Magno al Celio this coming March - But what will their prayer intentions be?

2012-02-08T18:50:00.019Z

San Gregorio Magno al Celio
Released into the public domain by Lalupa
(source: Wikimedia Commons)

According to Rome Reports, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, will be granted an audience with Pope Benedict XVI when he visits Rome this coming March. The two men will also pray together at San Gregorio Magno al Celio, the Benedictine church that faces the Palatine. It is from this place that Pope St Gregory the Great - to whom the monastic church is dedicated - sent St Augustine of Canterbury to convert the English in AD 595.

The Anglican Primate last met Pope Benedict during the Assisi World Day of Peace event, which was held last October. Before that, the two men spent some time together during the the Pope's state visit to the UK in September 2010. Although the Archbishop of Canterbury was cordial when welcoming the Pontiff to Britain, his initial words of welcome, spoken on BBC Radio 4 some months prior to the visit, had been rather frosty to say the least.

During his visit to the UK, the Pope co-celebrated an ecumenical service at Westminster Abbey with the Archbishop of Canterbury. At this event, the Holy Father emphasised his role as universal pastor of Christ's flock, and the special ministry he has been entrusted with to care for all the baptised. He also warned that authentic Christian unity must be based on that truth which has been revealed to the whole world in God's word. It is a warning that he has repeated both in recent speeches on Christian Unity Week as well as during other foreign trips, such as the one to Germany last year.

Noting that the people of Europe are thirsting for Christ, Pope Benedict XVI reminded the congregation of eclectic Christian leaders at Westminster Abbey (more properly known as the Collegiate Church of St Peter at Westminster) that all churches and ecclesial communities have a duty both to evangelise and to be faithful to God's word. He went on to say that obedience to God's word, and therefore His will, must be "free of intellectual conformism or facile accommodation to the spirit of the age."

The Pope is well aware of the grave scandal caused by so-called Christians who, both within the Catholic Church and as members of Protestant groups, actively appear to be undermining truth in their misguided attempts to make the Gospel more palatable to the secular societies that many in the West now find themselves in. The wise know that no-one will be attracted to a Church that models itself on the world - which is why so many liberal Catholic churches stand empty and why the Church of England in many places appears to be tottering on her last legs. Those searching for God are looking for something counter-cultural, for something that is in the world but not of it.

In his address at Westminster Abbey during the Papal visit, Archbishop Rowan Williams spoke fondly of the See of Rome. Whilst acknowledging that the present Pope reflects the universal mission of his forebears, ranging from St Peter and St Gregory the Great up to Benedict's own predecessor, Bl Pope John Paul II, Williams also spoke of the "very diverse views about the nature of the vocation that belongs to the See of Rome" that are held by those Christians - like himself - who are not in communion with Christ's vicar on earth.

Having said that, the Archbishop of Canterbury also went on to commit himself to John Paul II's ecumenical challenge to all Christians, which is encapsulated in his encyclical, Ut Unum Sint. Referring to Benedict XVI's predecessor and to Ut Unum Sint in particular, Rowan Williams said: "we must learn to reflect together on how the historic ministry of the Roman Church and its chief pastor may speak to the Church catholic [sic] - East and West, global north and global south - of the authority of Christ and his apostles to build up the Body in love."

Whilst ready to accept that the Roman Pontiff can be the point of unity for the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury obviously has problems accepting papal authority and the Petrine ministry. During an ecumenical event in a well-known Jesuit church before the Papal visit, I remember hearing Rowan Williams explain his position as being one of respecting the See of Rome but never really wanting to be in communion with it. He seemed to suggest that he would change his mind if the whole Catholic Church were to accept the modernising tends that have torn apart the Anglican communion.

From my own understanding of the Archbishop of Canterbury's words at the ecumenical gathering in the Jesuit church, his main reason for rejecting the Successor of St Peter seemed to be based on the fact that he personally disagrees with the Pope concerning certain moral issues facing the world today. To Catholics, this logic is sad one - a theologically truncated view of what it really means to be in communion with others, let alone with the See of Rome.

Do those about to get married have to agree on all things before entering into that mystical union of two bodies that is matrimony? Is not laying aside petty differences for the sake of unity a greater witness to love than disunity for the sake of maintaining historically sensitive opinions? Isn't being subject to the authority of Christ a higher ambition than clinging onto untruths for the sake of one's ego?

Seeing that Protestantism, like modernist Catholicism, is all about the ego rather than eternity, about rebellion rather than obedience, about protestation rather than prostration, should we be surprised that the leader of the world's Anglicans places greater emphasis on his opinions than on the truth, on parochial disagreements than on Christian unity?

One wonders what intentions both the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury will have in their hearts as they pray together on the site where St Augustine was sent to bring the Gospel to the English people? Which one of them has the greater desire for unity, which of them the greatest desire for God's love to be made fully manifest in His Church? My hope is that the prayers of both the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope will be united, as surely they should be, into one supplication genuine love - a cry for unity in the imitation of Christ.

Pope St Gregory the Great once wrote that the prayer of St Scholastica (whose feast it is on Friday - see here) was answered by God above a corresponding one offered by her twin, St Benedict, because "she who loved more, did more." I hope it is not too impertinent of me to say this, but it is my firm and Catholic belief that if both men were to hold different intentions, God would ultimately answer the prayer offered by the Pope - not so much because of his office, but because a universal pastor of Christ's flock who is also wedded to the truth is bound to "love more" than one whose own opinions seem to matter more to him than the salvation of the world.

Septuagesima Sunday - Our Catholic right to prepare for Lent

2012-02-05T15:15:00.023Z

From the "Season of Septuagesima" page in the
Saint Andrew's Daily Missal (1945, republished by
St Bonaventure Publications, 1999)

Today is the day when the Church traditionally began her preparations for Lent. Those who follow the ancient traditions of the Church, and are attached to the older form of the Mass, still observe this day, called Septuagesima Sunday. In fact, for traditional Catholics, today also begins a three-week liturgical period of Lenten anticipation, called the season of Septuagesima, or Shrovetide.

Although Septuagesima ("seventieth") implies that today is the seventieth day before Easter, the name is actually more symbolic than literal. In fact, there are only 63 days till Easter Sunday - 54 if we exclude Sundays (which are not counted as fast days during Lent).

Septuagesima as a name for this Sunday is actually taken from its connection with the season of Lent, which in Latin is called Quadragesima ("fortieth" - because Lent is forty days long). As Septuagesima falls on the third Sunday before Lent begins, the following Sundays are called Sexagesima ("sixtieth") and Quinquagesima ("fiftieth") respectively. Whilst Quinquagesima practically marks 50 days before Easter (49 to be exact), neither Sexagesima nor Septuagesima literally refer to sixty or seventy days. Although marking a time close enough to the sixtieth and seventieth days before Easter, the names for these Sundays soon developed a more symbolic in meaning. The whole season of Septuagesima, for example, reminds us of the Babylonian Captivity (or Exile), which lasted seventy years.

The two-and-a-half week season of Septuagesima is primarily concerned with the spiritual and practical preparations that are needed for the great and holy season of Lent. Traditionally, therefore, Septuagesima Sunday also marked the beginning of the carnival (meat-eating) season in Catholic countries - when people consumed all the food and drink that would otherwise go to waste during the Lenten fast. Of course, the carnival period in today's less spiritually-minded world still comes to an end on Shrove Tuesday (or Mardi Gras, "Fat Tuesday") - a day that was traditionally given over to the disposing of dairy products here in Britain, usually by eating countless pancakes! ("Shove" comes from the old English verb "shriving", which means "to confess one's sins" - a "shriven" soul being an "absolved" one.)

Needless to say, secular societies that were once Christian have retained the old Catholic customs surrounding Shrovetide, even if carnival-time has now become more about the misguided celebration of sin than a holy preparation for Lent. Sadly, here in the UK, more and more pancakes are scoffed every year on Shrove Tuesday, even though most people have no idea why "Pancake Day" (as it's now called) is being kept. Doubtless, many of those who enjoy a pancake the day before Ash Wednesday will have no intention whatsoever of keeping the Lenten fast - some will probably never even have heard of Lent.

Of course, the season of Septuagesima is also a time of spiritual anticipation both for Lent and Passiontide, which will soon be upon us, as well as the holiest of all seasons, Eastertide, which is the summit of the Church's year. During Septuagesima, the readings in the breviary concentrate on the prefiguring stories of Adam, Noah and Abraham, which are complimented by the themes evident at Mass - pointing to Christ as the New Adam (Septuagesima), the true Noah (Sexagesima) and the true Abraham (Quinquagesima).

Traditionally, a certain penitential sense would also have entered the Church's liturgy today. Those who attended an extraordinary form Mass this morning may have noticed that the vestments and colourings have already been changed from green to purple. The Alleluia is no more, and the Gloria, too, will not be sung again until Easter. In fact, there was a time when the Western Church even began its Lenten fast on this day, too. For those attached to traditional Catholicism, then, Septuagesima Sunday sees a change of gear, slowing things down so as to prepare us for the harsh realities of Lent. In that sense, Shrovetide is a kind of decompression chamber - helping us to acclimatise in time for Ash Wednesday and the forty-day fast.

It is strange to think that for centuries our ancestors were nourished by certain liturgical seasons that the 'official' Church has now abandoned. What was good and holy for our mothers and fathers, appears to have been decreed unnecessary for us. Yet, many in the Church still cling to the ancient traditions of the Catholic faith - that faith of our fathers, the faith of the saints. In years to come, I foresee a time when our children and grandchildren will wonder what kind of spirit really took possession of the Church during the latter half of the 20th century. Why, they'll ask, did the post-war generation vandalise our heritage in such a heinous way? Like many are already doing so today, future Catholics will wish to reclaim the Church's traditions - including the wonderful season of Septuagesima.

There is nothing to stop us from using today and the next couple of weeks as a time of preparation for Lent. Even those who cannot attend usus antiquior Masses can at least read Genesis and begin to spiritually and practically anticipate the great fast that is upon us. Let no-one dare try and convince us otherwise. As Catholics, it is our right to maintain our Church's traditions. It is also our privilege and joy to make a good and holy preparation for that joyful season called Lent.

The Number of the Beast - The temptation to blur the line between pure coincidence and Divine Providence

2012-02-04T17:00:00.015Z

Don't you just hate it when three sixes appear together?

I am not a man given over to superstition. Things such as signs and wonders tend not to interest me. Coincidences, on the whole, are merely that as far as I'm concerned. Sometimes, though, it is very tempting to see providence at work through day-to-day chance happenings.

Of course, things like conversions of life or callings to the religious life or priesthood can and do often witness clearly to the workings of Divine Providence. But what about the smaller, daily coincidences that happen? Are they merely chance occurrences, with no significance, or do some actually fall into that category which a friend of mine called "God-incidences"?

This afternoon, I sat down to think about my next blog post. I considered writing about either the Prophecy of St Malachy - which some believe is an accurate foretelling of the individual successors of St Peter - or the most recent damning evidence against the (pro-gay) Soho Masses - for more on that see the Hermeneutic of Continuity, The Bones, Fr Ray Blake, and the Catechises of Caroline. Tiredness and the need to relax made me think again, though. The post on Malachy's prophecies would probably need some research, whilst a piece on the Soho Masses would require attention to detail. So, I decided to wait and write about both these topics when I felt more awake. (I really want to write about St Malachy's Prophecy, especially as I have my own theory concerning Petrus Romanus - the final pope.)

Just then, there was a knock at the door. When I went to answer it, the strange-looking man standing outside my flat informed me that he'd come to read the gas-meter. Naturally, I welcomed him in and showed him to the meter in the kitchen. He opened the box and peered in. He then looked at me. I looked at him. Finally, we both looked at the meter together... The number on the panel read "666". (Well, to be accurate, it read "6660", but the first three figures really stood out as far as I was concerned.) The gas-man went on to write down the figure on his electronic pad, and I joked about turning the heating on so that the demonic number wouldn't remain on my meter for too long! The man laughed and then went his way. How strange, I thought.

Afterwards, I made myself a cup of tea and wondered whether that little incident would make a good blog post one day. I took a photo of the meter, which still displayed the Number of the Beast on its panel ten minutes after the event. My mind then began to wonder about all the other times throughout my life when the number 666 has appeared before my eyes. Often, one of the email addresses that I use, one connected to voluntary work for the Church, informs me that there are 666 unread messages in the inbox. In order to change the figure, I always delete spam and read all the important emails as quickly as possible. Needless to say, within hours, the figure will have crept back up once more to 666.

Although, I think of these instances as mere coincidences or chance happenings, it is nonetheless quite disturbing to be confronted with this figure from the Book of Revelation, especially since it became synonymous with evil following such horror films as the Omen. Maybe others feel the same sense of discomfort around this number?

Surely, many people - Christians or not - are aware of the Number of the Beast. I remember that even classmates at my secular state school became superstitious, or excited, around this number back in 1992. Just before a GCSE exam, my fellow pupils noticed that the examination number that we had to write out on the paper began with three sixes in a row. Some laughed, others seemed genuinely concerned that this number was some kind of bad omen. I saw the whole thing as random chance. Nothing to worry about.

Back to this afternoon....

Pope John Paul II's entry in Great Lives - one wonders
whether the page number was chosen deliberately?

Just after taking the photo of the gas-meter, I decided to do some cleaning. I have a little coffee table next to where I sit in the living-room. It often gets cluttered with papers, notes for this blog, letters and books. So, I decided that I would sift through all this stuff before getting on with the rest of my afternoon.

One of the first books that I picked up was The Times Great Lives (Times Books, 2007) - recently given to me, but as yet unread. Great Lives, which has a photo of the famous Catholic convert Sir Alec Guinness on the front cover, is a collection of obituaries that appeared in The Times newspaper throughout the 20th century. Interested to read the names of those contained in the book, I decided to flick through it. Towards the end, I noticed the obituary of Pope John Paul II, which had been published soon after his death on 2 April 2005.

Somehow, my eyes were drawn down to the bottom of the page... Yes, you've guessed it, Pope John Paul II's entry in my copy of Great Lives begins on page 666!

Life seems full of these strange coincidences, but which of them should we take seriously, and which of them fall into the dangerous, paranoid, and sometimes addictive realm of superstition? Was God trying to point out something to me this afternoon, or were these two bizarre appearances of the number 666 just pure coincidence?

Notices: Excellent news as Juventutem returns to Bristol!

2012-02-02T10:58:00.003Z

According to one of its organisers, Juventutem will be returning to Bristol, beginning with a Low Mass on 8 February. Here are the details for all those who may be interested: -

Good news! Juventutem, which is an association for Young Catholics, aged 18 - 35, who are drawn to the Traditional Liturgy of the Church has returned to Bristol. Regular events have been booked for the rest of the year, and details will be published in due course.

It is hoped that there will be Sung Masses and High Masses in future, as well as recollections. There will also be social events.

The first event will be a Low Mass on Wednesday 8 February 2012 at 6.30pm at Holy Cross, Dean Lane, Bedminster, Bristol, BS3 1DB. The celebrant will be Fr Andrew Goodman, and there will be an opportunity for a social gathering after the Mass.

Details of future Masses and social events will be published in the near future. For further information please visit The Latin Mass Society in Clifton or email: juventutembristol@gmail.com

The Mass is open to anyone of any age. (It is only the social events that are designed for 18-35 year olds).

Please spread the word and encourage as many people as you can to join this wonderful movement of young people devoted to the traditional liturgy of the Roman Rite. And if you can, please consider attending the Mass on 8 February. If you haven't yet attended an old Rite Mass, you don't know what you've been missing!

Update: The saint's monkey - a copy of the original plans for Eric Gill's altarpiece

2012-02-02T10:54:00.002Z

St Thomas More's pet ape is seen here, bottom left
Imaged reproduced by kind permission (see post for details)

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about Eric Gill's altarpiece in the Chapel of St George and the English Martyrs at Westminster Cathedral. As mentioned in the post, the original work contained a carving of St Thomas More's pet monkey, which was removed by order of Cardinal Griffin just before the piece was set into place in 1947.

Since posting about this interesting tale, a few readers wrote to me asking whether there were any images of the monkey. There's only one that I know of, and it is found in Gill's original plans for the altarpiece. I have been told that the artist did not deviate from this draft.

Westminster Cathedral's historian, Patrick Rogers has kindly given me permission to reproduce an image of Gill's plans (with monkey) as found in his book, Westminster Cathedral: from Darkness to Light (Continuum 2003; p 103). This drawing by Eric Gill, dated 29 July 1939, was owned by the artist's nephew, John Skelton, until his death in 1999. He gave Patrick Rogers access to this plan just before he died.

Westminster Cathedral: from Darkness to Light is currently out of print, but Patrick Rogers in the process of writing a new and updated history of the Cathedral. He hopes that his latest book will be published sometime before the end of this year. It, too, should contain fascinating images such as this one of St Thomas More's monkey.

Detail of the monkey from a reproduced image

A former Manchester United and Norwich footballer's entry into a seminary has filled me with memories and emotions

2012-01-31T00:10:00.031Z

Philip Mulryne during his time at
Norwich FC - (source: SportsWorld Cards)

It was really wonderful to read in the Catholic Herald last Friday that the former international and premiership footballer, Philip Mulryne, is currently discerning a vocation to the priesthood at the Pontifical Irish College in Rome. After a successful career in football, Mulryne, who once played in the same team as David Beckham and Ryan Giggs, was recently accepted as a student for the priesthood by Bishop Noel Treanor of Down and Connor.

After beginning his soccer career with Manchester United, Philip Mulryne moved to Norwich City and subsequently played for Ipswich Town, Barnsley, Leyton Orient and the Polish side, Legia Warsaw. For many years, he also played midfield for Northern Ireland, along with fellow Norwich team-mate, Paul McVeigh. Both men were born in Belfast.

I have already mentioned before on this blog that I once lived in Norwich for many years. During that time, I was quite a keen Norwich City fan. Like so many others, I will never forget the night in April 2004 when I heard that the team - which included Mulryne and McVeigh - had been promoted to the Premier League. Norwich subsequently went on to win the Championship that year, too. In fact, I was amongst the crowd to greet the players when they appeared on City Hall's balcony to celebrate their achievements at the end of the 2003/04 season.

It was around the same time that I also made some drastic changes in my own life, and decided to concentrate on the potential calling to the priesthood that I had felt since my own baptism as a 16-year-old in 1992. Although I had always felt called to the religious life or the sacred ministry since the moment the baptismal waters touched my head, I had always tried to block out or avoid these rather frightening feelings. The feast of St John the Baptist, 2004, though, saw me resolve to attend daily Mass and seek some vocational guidance.

The next few years were the most grace-filled and joyful of my whole life, full of prayer and a sense of awe. It seemed as if I didn't have to try that hard to commit to my faith, as God was filling my life with unmerited grace. He even seemed to intervene to stop me smoking - I gave up a 60-a-day habit suddenly after Mass one day. Those amazing days remind me of these words from Scripture:

If the Lord does not build the house,
in vain do its builders labour;
if the Lord does not watch over the city,
in vain does the watchman keep vigil.
In vain is your earlier rising,
your going later to rest,
you who toil for the bread you eat,
when he pours gifts on his beloved while they slumber. (Ps 127:1-2)

Living next to St John's Cathedral, Norwich, was a great help - it meant that I could easily get to the 7.30am Mass every morning, before which I would pray the Office of Readings and Morning Prayer at home. The Cathedral also had a successful Young Adults' Group, which led a well-attended weekly hour of Adoration. It was as if everything was in place, just waiting for me to make the most of it. All I had to do was turn up and receive an abundance of God's love.

Amongst those who used to attend the weekday Mass at St John's was Mulryne's team-mate, Paul McVeigh. Although I never like to mention people that I have seen at Mass or at prayer, anyone who happened to go to the 7.30am Mass in Norwich's Catholic Cathedral during Lent would have noticed this famous footballer - there were only ever about 15 of us in the congregation, and most of us did not look like premiership soccer players!

McVeigh obviously took his faith seriously, and his attendance at daily Mass was an inspiration to me and to many others, especially when we sometimes knew that he would be rushing off to play against Manchester United, Everton or Aston Villa straight afterwards. Of course, another regular at St John's was the celebrity cook and television presenter, Delia Smith, who has co-owned Norwich City FC for many years.

Paul McVeigh has written on his blog about a recent to visit to see his old team-mate, Phil Mulryne, at the Pontifical Irish College. From what he wrote, McVeigh seems genuinely pleased that his friend is now discerning a vocation to the sacred priesthood. The Catholic Herald also reports McVeigh's surprise at Mulryne's decision - in the past, Phil Mulryne has dated glamorous women, like the model Nicola Chapman.

On his blog, McVeigh commented on his friend's new life, writing: “To my amazement, and most likely to the rest of the footballing fraternity’s, Phil decided to train to become a Catholic priest. I was still in contact with him and knew that he had turned his life around and was doing a lot of charitable work and helping the homeless on a weekly basis. Still, it was a complete shock that he felt this was his calling." He added that his friend had not taken his decision lightly, and that Philip Mulryne looked "contented" when they both met.

Paul McVeigh's blog entry is very interesting, and I highly recommend that you read it yourselves - he even mentions how he visited the Vatican and ended up playing a 5-a-side football match with some seminarians! When I read McVeigh's account of his trip to Rome, I couldn't help wonder whether he had sometimes prayed for Mulryne during those years when he would attend Mass at St John's. I am sure they are keeping each other in prayer now.

Mulryne and his steps towards the priesthood has raised a lot of feelings for me - good ones, and some sad ones, too. My mind has been filled with memories of Norwich and the amazing time that led me to take the plunge and to enter a seminary in 2006. Needless to say, I have also been trying to figure out why I left so suddenly after entering - something that still haunts me to this day.

To have felt called to the priesthood for many years and then to have thrown it all away is probably my one greatest regrets in life. And I have subsequently spent far too much time wondering what motivated me to do this. Maybe I wasn't ready? Maybe I wanted to test the monastic vocation? Maybe God intervened and saved the Church from a potential disaster? Who knows. One thing I am sure of, though, is that I would have made an awful priest!

Today, I feel far too unworthy to even contemplate discerning a vocation to the priesthood, even if no hour goes by without me being more and more convinced that the one thing that would have fulfilled me and made me happy is the one thing I chucked away. It is an awful cross to carry, especially knowing that in deliberately choosing to reject God's gift, I may have gravely offended Him. (Despite the consoling words of others, the fact remains that when one friend spurs the gifts of another, it doesn't bode well for the friendship.)

The fact that I did not stick it out and carry on discerning a potential vocation to the priesthood really fills me with dread. Will I never now know fulfilment in this life? To what purpose is the earthy existence of a failed vocation? How much longer can I go one being haunted by a way of life that I am both afraid of and also feel drawn to at the same time? A house divided surely cannot stand. Something will have to give sooner or later.

Because of my own experiences of failure and regret, I always encourage seminarians to stick with it - unless they are totally sure that the priesthood is not for them. As for those who have left the priesthood, how can one live an 'ordinary' life after having once known the greatest contentment that any man may feel? Surely, they must miss offering the Sacrifice of the Mass, even if they now have the consolations of family life?

But that's enough moping! Let's all of us rejoice that someone who has known the glories of this world has been given the courage and the grace to cast out into the deep and enter a seminary. It cannot have been easy for Philip Mulryne, a man in his mid-30s, to leave all that he has known in order to discern a vocation to the priesthood. He deserves our prayers and support. Also, not only is this good news for him personally, as well as his diocese, but it is also something that the whole Church in Ireland can rejoice in - especially after the priesthood there has suffered such a bad press in recent times.

The dead king and the thirsty dogs - The interesting tale of Friar Peto and the gruesome funeral procession of Henry VIII

2012-01-28T17:00:00.012Z

King Henry VIII with Jane Seymour and his heir, the future
King Edward VI. In the public domain.
(source: Wikimedia Commons)

King Henry VIII, who died on this day in 1547, was probably one of England's cruelest tyrants. By placing his wanton lust before the welfare of his people, Henry VIII's personal sins eventually saw England fall into schism and even into heresy. It is a schism and a distortion of Christianity that Britain has never fully recovered from. As a nation, we are still paying for Henry's crimes.

Henry's people feared him, so much so that his advisers didn't dare tell him that he was dying - he had made it a criminal offence to foretell the king's death! In fact, it seems that Henry VIII remained oblivious to the fact that he was not much longer for the world until his Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, informed him of his imminent death only hours before the fact. One brave man, though, had prophesied something concerning the king's death many years before. That man was Friar (later Bishop and Cardinal) William Peto.

William Peto (or Petow, Peyto) was the son of Edward Peyto of Chesterton, Warwickshire, and Goditha, daughter of Sir Thomas Throckmorton of Coughton. The exact year of his birth is unknown, though we do know that after receiving a Franciscan at Oxford, he graduated from that university in 1502. Peto then went on to study at Cambridge, where he received an MA degree in 1505. One year later, he was elected fellow of Queens' College, Cambridge.

Peto becomes a Franciscan

Even as a student, it seems that William Peto was known for his holiness, so it was no surprise that he found his vocation with the Franciscans. Soon after his ordination into the priesthood, Peto became the confessor to one of Henry VIII's daughters, the future Queen Mary. Based at the Observant Friary in Greenwich, which had always found royal favour, and which was a favourite spiritual haunt of Henry's, Friar Peto soon rose to become the order's provincial in England. It's during this time - the 1520s and early 1530s - that he came into conflict with the king, who was then determined to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon and marry his long-term mistress, the Protestant Anne Boleyn.

The Palace of Placentia, Greenwich - next to which was Greyfriars,
the Franciscan friary. In the public domain, created in the 17th century.
(source: Wikimedia Commons)

Henry VIII been born and raised in Greenwich, and loved to spend as much time as possible at his palace there - called the Palace of Placentia. Whenever they happened to be in Greenwich, the royals favoured the Franciscans, who had been founded and given land adjacent to the Palace of Placentia by Edward IV in 1480. Known for their preaching and their dedication to the poor and their loyalty to the Church, the Franciscans were esteemed not only by monarchs, but also by the ordinary citizens of London. In fact, when the real and bloody persecution of Catholics began under Henry, and which continued for a further two centuries, some of the Church's first martyred saints of the Reformation were members of the Franciscan Friary in Greenwich.

Speaking truth to power - the preacher's vocation

On 31 March 1532, which happened to be Easter Sunday that year, King Henry VIII attended Mass at the Franciscan chapel in Greenwich. He was at that time consumed both by his lust for Anne Boleyn and with his pressing desire to divorce Catherine - a situation that many referred to as "the King's Matter". The preacher that morning was William Peto, who was well-known to the royal family as he was, of course, the young Princess Mary's confessor. Rather than concentrating on the Resurrection, though, Peto based his sermon on 1 Kings 22, which tells of King Ahab's refusal to be attentive to God's word, as given to him by the prophet Micaiah, and his subsequent disgraceful death and humiliating burial.

Anne Boleyn - England's Jezebel?
In the public domain.
(source: Wikimedia Commons)

In a stunning act of bravery, and in fidelity to his faith and in his authentic desire to save the king, Friar Peto went on to compare Henry VIII to King Ahab - whose wife Jezebel had replaced the Lord's true prophets with the pagan priests of Baal. The obvious inference being that Boleyn was England's Jezebel - who would use the king's infatuation with her to replace Catholicism with the fancies of Luther, to whom she seemed particularly devoted. To the amazement of the congregation that had gathered at the Franciscan church that morning, Peto went on to warn Henry that if he continued to behave like Ahab then his corpse would suffer the same indignity that had befallen the Israelite king. After his death wild dogs had licked Ahab's blood (cf 1 Kings 22:38).

Needless to say, Henry VIII was not amused by Friar Peto's sermon. But he had not yet fallen into the tyrannical madness that would mark his later years. In fact, the king actually met with Peto following this event, to try and persuade the friar of his belief that his marriage to Catherine was invalid. Peto, though, warned the king to his face that to abandon his lawful wife would lead to the end of the Tudor dynasty. Soon after this exchange, Henry even allowed Peto leave the country, for he had been called to Toulouse to represent the English Franciscans at the order's general chapter. Immediately after William Peto had left for the Continent, though, Henry VIII arranged for one of his own private chaplains, Dr Hugh Curwen

Henry's counter-offensive

Curwen's sermon was a direct attack on Peto and an attempted defence of Henry's planned divorce. There is credible evidence to suggest that the king himself was in attendance, incognito, to hear Curwen's homily. It began with an accusation of cowardice against Peto - Curwen claimed that the friar was scared of the king and had fled to Toulouse for refuge. As the royal chaplain began to defend the king's intended divorce, some of the friars, led by their warden, Friar Elstow, began protesting loudly. Elstow even climbed into the church's rood-loft, from where he appeared "like a ghost in the play" (cf The Religious Orders in England - Vol. III - by David Knowles, Cambridge University Press, 1959; p 207).

The Franciscan shouted down at the king's preacher. Uproar ensued. Elstow then went on to compare Curwen to one of the prophets of Baal, and also accused him of wishing to secure preferment under the king rather than enjoyment of God's favour. Curwen, exclaimed Elstow, was a stooge of the king's, not a disciple of the truth. In the end, it seems that King Henry VIII had to publicly reveal himself so as to order Elstow's silence. We can safely assume, then, that the Franciscans fell out of English royal favour on that day! It even seems that the future Catholic Queen Mary also turned against them at that time - probably fearing that in their enthusiasm for the Church, some friars had pushed her father further away from it.

An example of Henry VIII's religious vandalism.
The Cistercians, like the Franciscans, saw their
monasteries dissolved under Henry.
Rievaulx Abbey - released into the public domain by
Flaxon (source: Wikimedia Commons)

After his return from France, Friar Peto was imprisoned by Henry VIII. Amongst the other friars who joined him in prison was Friar Elstow. Within a year, though, both men had been released. They immediately escaped to the Continent, knowing by then that it was dangerous to remain in England, for the king was becoming more vengeful towards the Church by the day. Within a year, priests and religious - including members of their own community - were being executed for the faith. Within two years, in 1535, even laymen, like St Thomas More, had faced the gallows for their defence of the truth. Peto lived in Antwerp for a while, where he edited a book written by the now canonised Bishop John Fisher in defence of Queen Catherine of Aragon. He also helped fellow English and Welsh Catholic refugees during his time on the Continent. Several of Henry's spies informed the king that Peto "laboureth busier than a bee in setting forth" Fisher's book, and that "the king never had in his realm traitors like the friars" (The King's Reformation by G W Bernard, Yale University Press, 2005; p 153).

Raised to the purple and given the red hat

In 1539, William Peto was included in the Act of Attainder passed against Cardinal Pole and his allies, but was safely out of the king's reach by then. In fact, Peto was living in Italy by the end of the 1530s, where he remained till the death of King Henry VIII and his Protestant successor, Edward VI. On 30 March 1543, Pope Paul III appointed Peto as Bishop of Salisbury, though he was unable, of course, to obtain possession of his diocese. By the time he could lay claim to his see, he did not attempt to do so. In fact, on the accession of Queen Mary in 1553, her former confessor formally resigned the bishopric of Salisbury and subsequently retired to his old friary at Greenwich.

William Peto's friend, Pope Paul IV
In the public domain (source: Wikimedia Commons)

Soon after his election to the papacy, Pope Paul IV decided to elevate Bishop William Peto to the College of Cardinals. Both men had known each other in Rome, and the new pope wished Peto to become his legate in England, replacing Cardinal Reginald Pole, whom he had recently appointed Archbishop of Canterbury. By then, Peto was quite elderly and declined the red hat. Even so, Pope Paul IV preceded with the nomination, and his old friend was raised to the cardinalate in June 1557.

Queen Mary, though, would not allow her old confessor to receive his red hat, and it seems that Peto faced considerable - and unfair - public derision because of this. Some sources even suggest that he was pelted with stones by a London mob soon after this affair, an event that probably led to a his death a few months later. As to his death, there seem to be uncertainties about where and when this happened. Some have questioned whether Cardinal Peto died in London or in France. The date of his death is also vague. Many agree that he died a few weeks before his Queen, sometime in the late Summer or early Autumn of 1558. Just before her own death in November of that year, Mary had written to Pope Paul IV. In her letter, she mentioned that she had offered to reinstate Peto as Bishop of Salisbury, but that he had declined due to ill health and old age.

But what happened to Henry's corpse?

There are two reasons why Henry VIII was not buried in Westminster Abbey, with the rest of his family. The first is that he wished to be buried next to his third queen, Jane Seymour - the woman who bore him his only son and heir, Edward. She was buried in St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle. In a will dated 1546, Henry had specifically mentioned his desire to be buried next to her, and also made provisions for a great monument to be erected for them both - this never happened and the black marble sarcophagus once designed for Henry VIII, which he in turn had confiscated from Cardinal Wolsey, now adorns Lord Nelson's tomb in St Paul's Cathedral. The second reason for Henry's burial outside London is due to the fact that his people hated him - or most of them did, at least. There might have been open rebellion had the dead king been buried with honour in Westminster Abbey - a monastery that he himself had dissolved along with all the other great shrines and religious houses of England and Wales.

The macabre procession to Windsor

It was over two weeks after his death before the great procession of Henry's body left Whitehall and Westminster towards Windsor. Not many people came out to pay their respects, and those who did so either greeted the coffin out of fear or a false sense of loyalty. Most of the mourners were paid to be there - they included Henry VIII's domestic staff, the boys who worked in his kitchens and the women who washed his laundry. Decked in specially made black outfits, these servants of the king walked with his body all the way to Windsor. His lead coffin, which was carried on a lavishly decorated chariot, had an effigy of Henry VIII on top. This representation of the dead king was so convincing that many, including the Spanish ambassador, thought it really was him.

Another fine mess - The Henrician Reform of
Walsingham Abbey and its Shrine to Our Lady.
Photo (c) David P Orman, published under a
creative commons licence (source: Wikimedia)

During this macabre procession, priests would greet the king's coffin as it passed their churches - sprinkling it with holy water and honouring it with incense. Bishops were also stationed along the route, to offer Masses for his soul - often in ruined monastic chapels, which he himself had vandalised. Henry's cortège was also surrounded by banners displaying images of the saints, including Edward the Confessor - whose shrine he had destroyed - and Our Lady - whose main place of pilgrimage in Walsingham had also been sacked by the king. Such was the maddening evil that had twisted Henry VIII's mind and soul towards the end of his life that he seemed convinced he could assert his devotion to the Virgin Mary on the one hand, whilst also desecrating her churches, images and shrines with the other!

Eight miles from London, Henry VIII's funeral procession stopped for the night at Syon House. It had once been England's most esteemed Bridgettine monastery, but was by then a private country house. Before Henry had suppressed this monastery, executed one of its priests (St Richard Reynolds), and given it to his in-laws, the Seymour family, he had often frequented the place as a pilgrim. He enjoyed hearing Mass there as a boy and later on as a contented young man, before his own Jezebel had led him into the wilderness of spiritual pride. As an unwelcome corpse, though, he was left alone for the evening in the old Abbey's ruined chapel.

"The tongues of your dogs take a share of the foe" (Ps 68:24)

Syon House - the site of Syon Monastery, founded by Henry V in 1415.
(c) Russ Hamer, published under a creative commons licence.
(source: Wikimedia Commons)

After the Bishop of London had offered Mass for his soul, some attendants noticed that Henry's lead coffin had been damaged during the night. Either because of the weight of the effigy and the other decorations surrounding the coffin, or because the king's body had exploded - it was extremely bloated and had entered into an advanced state of putrefaction by then - the casket seemed to have expanded and opened up in parts. Those present also noticed the rotting stench that filled Syon's old chapel as the king lay there, and a liquid which looked like blood had also seeped onto the stone floor. Both the foul smell and the bloody pus discharging from his suppurating body was too gruesome for public display. So it was decided to find local plumbers to solder the lead coffin's joints before the procession headed off on the final leg of its journey.

On the evidence of one of these plumbers as well as other witnesses, we know that when the king's casket was being repaired a dog (possibly belonging to one of the plumbers) ran under the coffin and began to lick Henry's bloodied pus. Here is an eye-witness account of the event, which is quoted in Robert Hutchinson's The Last Days of Henry VIII (Weidenfeld, 2005): -

[T]he pavement of the church was wetted with Henry’s blood. In the morning came plumbers to solder the coffin under whose feet was suddenly seen a dog creeping and licking up the king’s blood. If you ask me how I know this, I answer William Grenville, who could scarcely drive away the dog told me and so did the plumber also.

It seemed that Friar Peto's prophecy had been realised. As the old friar's warning to Henry back in 1532 had been widely reported at the time, many people were aware of it. Needless to say, word soon got out that Henry VIII really had married England's Jezebel and had also abandoned God and been punished for it in a manner reminiscent of King Ahab.

St George's Chapel, Windsor
(c) Aurelian Guichard, published under a creative commons
licence. (source: Wikimedia Commons)

Henry was eventually buried next to Jane Seymour in St George's Chapel, Windsor. Just over a century later, they were joined by Charles I, who had been deposited in the same vault after his execution at the hands of Oliver Cromwell. Neither king was given a memorial slab until the early 19th century, and Henry's dreams of being buried in a colossal monument tomb were never realised. It seems that even his Protestant descendants may have been embarrassed by their tyrannical ancestor. One is also reminded of that old saying, once proclaimed thrice before newly enthroned popes: Sic transit gloria mundi - Thus passes the glory of the world.

Like Friar Peto and all those men and women who faced persecution and death for speaking truth to power during the English Reformation, may we Catholics of today also be fearless in proclaiming the Gospel that brings forth salvation. In desiring to save men's souls, let us even be put to death or sent to exile or prison if needs be, even by the very ones whose salvation we earnestly desire. It is our Christian duty to love all men and to proclaim the truth, even as Christ our Saviour did.

The papacy and the golden rose - Pope Benedict XVI will give Our Lady of Charity a beautiful gift when he visits Cuba

2012-01-26T00:10:00.017Z

The golden rose presented by Pope Benedict XVI
to the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception
in 2008 - attributed to Indultiomarus and published
under a creative commons licence (source: Wikimedia)

It was reported yesterday that Pope Benedict XVI plans to award a golden rose to Our Lady of Charity of El Cobre, patroness of Cuba, during his forthcoming visit to the Caribbean island. The Pope will be in Cuba from 26 - 28 March, during which time he will commemorate the 400th anniversary of Our Lady of Charity (for more on her, please see my earlier post on Nuestra Señora de la Caridad del Cobre). He will also meet with members of the island's Catholic community as well as President Raul Castro and former President Fidel Castro - who recently described Benedict XVI as "having the face of an angel".

The awarding of golden roses by popes is an ancient and beautiful Catholic tradition. The custom is believed to date back to the early part of the 8th century, and was definitely an ancient one by 1051, when Pope Leo IX referred to it as something that was well established before his time. Some historians think that even Charlemagne (742 - 814) was awarded one. There is also evidence to suggest that giving of golden roses to kings or illustrious noblemen supplanted the slightly older practice of sending filings from the golden keys of St Peter to Catholic monarchs - a custom which may have been introduced by Pope Gregory II in 716.

Whereas popes in the past would send a copy of the keys of the kingdom to legitimate monarchs, as a sign of the papacy's support for their Divine right, they subsequently sent roses as a token of their affection and love. Throughout the Middle Ages, most of those who received a golden rose were loyal Catholics still living, though it became popular with the passing of the centuries for popes to also send roses to shrines of Our Lady or some saint, as a sign of their devotion. It is interesting to note that amongst the kings who were given a papal rose is Henry VIII, who actually received a total of three before eventually breaking with Rome and leading England into schism - one wonders whether he gave them back!

From the beginning of the 17th century, the papal rose was awarded only to queens, princesses and eminent noblemen, whilst kings and princes were given a sword or something equally 'manly'. Some exceptions were made to this unofficial rule, and male Catholic monarchs were sometimes awarded golden roses if they happened to be in Rome on Lætare Sunday - the fourth Sunday of Lent, when rose coloured vestments are worn. Due to its liturgical colour, this day is also known as Rose Sunday.

Pope Benedict XVI gives a golden rose to
Our Lady of Fatima, 13 May 2010 -
(c) M.Mazur/www.thepapalvisit.org.uk
(source: Flickr)

It's on Lætare Sunday that golden roses were traditionally blessed by pontiffs - a custom which is still very much alive. On that day, the flower's golden leaves, which look like the rising sun, point towards Christ's risen majesty and the wonder of Easter. It's also on Rose Sunday that these special roses are suffused with the enchanting fragrance of musk and balsam - both substances are added to the flower during the papal blessing. This scent, according to Pope Leo XIII, "shows the sweet odour of Christ which should be widely diffused by his faithful followers", whilst the rose's thorns and the red tint of the gold remind us of his sorrowful Passion. In his reflections on the tradition of the golden rose, the great Pope Innocent III had this to say: "As Lætare Sunday, the day set apart for the function, represents love after hate, joy after sorrow, and fullness after hunger, so does the rose designate by its colour, odour and taste, love, joy and satiety respectively." (Both quotes from New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia).

Before the end of the 19th century it had become increasingly rare for the pope to award the golden rose to individuals. Even before the close of the 18th century it had practically become unheard of for a man to receive one. The last person to be given a golden rose was Charlotte, Grand Duchess of Luxembourg, who received hers from Pope Pius XII in 1956. No pope since has awarded one of these holy roses to an individual person - noble or otherwise. But several gifts have been made to holy places, especially to those shrines dedicated to the Virgin Mary. Pope Paul VI awarded five golden roses during his pontificate, whilst Bl Pope John Paul II awarded four roses, all of which were to Marian shrines. One of John Paul II's roses was given to the Shrine of Our Lady of Knock in Ireland - I remember seeing that particular golden flower when I went on pilgrimage there in 1994.

Golden rose by Giuseppe and Pietro Paolo Spagna.
The Hofburg Imperial Palace in Vienna.
Attributed to Gryffindor, released into the public domain.
(source: Wikimedia Commons)

Some holy sites have been awarded more than one golden rose, amongst which are: St Peter's Basilica, which has five; the Basilica of St John Lateran, which has four; and Santa Maria Maggiore, the Shrine of Our Lady of Częstochowa and the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Fátima, all of which have two. Other Marian shrines that have been awarded a golden rose include the National Shrine of Our Lady of Aparecida, the Shrine of Our Lady of Lourdes, the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Scherpenheuvel, the Pontifical Shrine of the Virgin of the Rosary of Pompeii, and the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington.

Pope Benedict XVI seems to enjoy giving golden roses to Our Lady, as he has made a total of eleven awards so far - including to many of the sites listed above. The golden rose that he will soon give to the Shrine of Our Lady of Charity in Cuba will be the twelfth such award during his pontificate - well over double the amount handed out by his predecessor. This fact confirms that not only is Benedict XVI a devotee of papal traditions and customs, but he is also a loyal and devoted son of Our Lady.

The Holy Father's award of a papal rose to Nuestra Señora de la Caridad del Cobre is his way of not only honouring the Virgin Mary, but also the people of Cuba - of whom she is the patron saint. It is also a reminder to all of us that generosity and the giving of beautiful and special gifts is a sign of true love and devotion (cf Jn 12:1-8).

Pope Benedict XVI immediately after having awarded a golden rose to
Our Lady of Fatima and her Shrine on 13 May 2010
(c) M.Mazur/www.thepapalvisit.org.uk (source: Flickr)
Click here for another good photo of the Pope smiling before Our Lady and the golden rose.

Churchill and Moses: Britain's mythological war-hero was a convinced believer in Moses and the Exodus from Egypt

2012-01-24T08:05:00.009Z

"Great and good are seldom the same man" -
Sir Winston Churchill.
Photo taken on 2 August 1944, in the public domain.
(source: Wikimedia Commons)

Today marks the 47th anniversary of Sir Winston Churchill's death. Here in the UK, Churchill is not only regarded as a war-hero, but sometimes even as a kind of legendary demi-god. He is viewed by many as 'the man of the hour', appointed by some kind of 'fate' (the British don't really 'do God') to save Britain during the Second World War. But the real Churchill is far more interesting than the sanitised myths that surround him.

Whilst being an admirer of Winston Churchill the man, the historian and the politician, the rather mythological way he is regarded by some in England does not sit well with me. In fact, I share Peter Hitchens' conviction that the "Cult of Churchill" borders on being a secular quasi-religion (cf The Rage Against God, Continuum, 2010; pp 45 - 57). The way in which some regard Churchill as the "Great Leader" or "the Saviour of our Country", as the historian A J P Taylor once referred to him, reflects the radical desacralisation of post-war Britain.

Whenever God is pushed out of the picture, men or material things usually fill the void. This false or disordered attitude towards life is known as idolatry. It is a tragic flaw in humans - when we place men on pedestals and hide God from view.

The fact that Sir Winston is often viewed as a man who was infallible, incapable of sin, or who single-handedly saved the world from Nazism, shows how powerful the Churchillian myth has become. Hitchens even argues that the Churchill cult served an extremely useful purpose in the 1950s and 60s, as Britain ditched Christianity and embraced secularism. As he himself says about his childhood, during which both he and his now deceased brother, Christopher, were unintentionally formed as atheists: "I knew more about [Churchill's] life than I did about the life of Christ. He was our saviour." As G K Chesterton famously declared: "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing - they believe in anything." Secular nations often need to replace the Divine with human idols - be they political, intellectual or the very shallow celebrity ones that seem to inhabit today's world.

Having said all that, I do actually admire Churchill. Even if I feel repelled by his semi-deification, I gladly consent to the fact that he was one of Britain's most inspirational leaders. He definitely deserves his place amongst the pantheon of great prime ministers, men such as Gladstone, Disraeli, and Lloyd George. It's also important to note that Winston Churchill had a great mind, which he sometimes even deployed in defence of Christianity. Although it would be wrong to speak of him as a devout church-goer, he did recognise that the world needs to believe in its Creator. Had no time, though, for the "fanatical frenzy" often exhibited in the Muslim faith, which he once claimed was "as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog." For a man who was well aware of the dangers of totalitarianism, Islam was probably viewed by Churchill as a potent and perilous form of it.

Another thing that I admire about Winston Churchill is that he was a great defender of biblical history, especially in relation to Moses and the Exodus of Israel. He strongly countered the modern claim that the great Hebrew leader was somehow based on pure myth. In 1932, Churchill published an essay entitled "Moses", in which he argued that those who proclaim that the Jewish Lawgiver did not exist would eventually be proved wrong. He claimed that the Bible itself is a viable and important historical document - one inspired by God.

Here is part of what the future war-leader wrote about Moses and the historical veracity of Scripture: -

"Books are written in many languages upon the question of how much of [the Ten Commandments and the Exodus] was due to Moses. Devastating, inexorable modern study and criticism have proved that the Pentateuch constitutes a body of narrative and doctrine which came into being over at least the compass of several centuries. We reject, however, with scorn all those learned and laboured myths that Moses was but a legendary figure upon whom the priesthood and the people hung their essential social, moral, and religious ordinances. We believe that the most scientific view, the most up-to-date and rationalistic conception, will find its fullest satisfaction in taking the Bible story literally, and in identifying one of the greatest of human beings with the most decisive leap forward ever discernible in the human story. We remain unmoved by the tomes of Professor Gradgrind and Dr Dryasdust. We may be sure that all these things happened just as they are set out according to Holy Writ. We may believe that they happened to people not so very different from ourselves, and that the impressions those people received were faithfully recorded and have been transmitted across the centuries with far more accuracy than many of the telegraphed accounts we read of the goings-on of today. In the words of a forgotten work of Mr Gladstone, we rest with assurance upon 'The impregnable rock of Holy Scripture.'"

"Let the men of science and of learning expand their knowledge and probe with their researches every detail of the records which have been preserved to us from these dim ages. All they will do is to fortify the grand simplicity and essential accuracy of the recorded truths which have lighted so far the pilgrimage of man." ("Moses", from the collection of essays Thoughts and Adventures, Odhams, 1947 edition; pp 224-5).

Churchill's views reflect those held by the great biblical scholar, John Bright, who argued that: "Though we know nothing about [Moses's] career, save what the Bible tells us, the details of which we have no means of testing, there can be no doubt that he was, as the Bible portrays him, the great founder of Israel's faith. The attempts to reduce him are extremely unconvincing ... A faith as unique as Israel's demands a founder as surely as does Christianity - or Islam, for that matter. To deny that role to Moses would force us to posit another person of the same name." (History of Israel, John Knox Press, 2000, 4th edition; pp 126-7).

I'll be sure to remember Churchill in my prayers today, though will be praying for him, not to him. He was no saint. Neither was he semi-divine or super-human. Having said that, he was a great man. Churchill also recognised greatness in others. He was humble enough to accept the great vale of Sacred Scripture, too - both as historical evidence and as a Word given to inspire man. As a leader of men, he intuitively knew that people are not led by ghosts and that even myths are ultimately based on real characters. If Israel was led from Egypt, then someone would have had to have acted as leader. As both Churchill and Bright argued, if it wasn't Moses who led the Hebrews from Egypt, then who else could it have been?

Guild of Blessed Titus Brandsma's second meeting - a day of devotion, socialising and discussion for those who share their Catholic faith online

2012-01-21T10:30:00.005Z

I would like to encourage all those who can and who often share their Catholic faith online to come along to this special day for those who use the new media (Blogging, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, comments pages, etc). It will be a great opportunity for those of us who normally only commune via the sometimes 'dark glass' of computer monitors to actually see each other 'face to face' (cf 1Cor 13:12).

The first Guild meeting was an extraordinary day in more ways than one. Not only was it one of the hottest October days on record, but all three sacred ministers at the High Mass were priest-bloggers - surely a first for the Catholic Church! It was also good to be at Fr Tim Finigan's parish, where we received a most generous and warm welcome.

During the day, Saturday 18 February, Fr Sam Medley SOLT (Medley Minute) will speak on "Blessed Bloggery", reflecting especially on blogging (or the new media) as a form of ecclesial communion. We will also be able to gather for Mass, celebrated by Fr Tim Finigan (Hermeneutic of Continuity), followed by Adoration and Benediction. Those who wish to may also avail themselves of Confession at this time.

All Catholics who make use of the new media are welcome to attend this day, especially those who comment online, have their own blog, have a Facebook page, and so on. For the past few years, Pope Benedict XVI has specifically encouraged Catholics to share their Christian faith online. He has also pointed out the challenges involved in communicating both the Gospel and our own personalities via the internet. This day at Blackfen, sponsored by the Guild of Blessed Titus Brandsma, is a genuine attempt to respond to the Pope's invitation to use the new media as a tool for the New Evangelisation.

For directions to Our Lady of the Rosary, Blackfen, please visit the parish website. It is quite easy to get to from central London.

For those who are interested in coming along, please do so - the fact that you are reading this shows that you have an obvious interest in Catholicism online or Catholics on the internet.

I look forward to seeing as many of you as possible on the day!

The saint's monkey - How Cardinal Griffin tampered with Eric Gill's altarpiece in Westminster Cathedral

2012-01-19T22:30:00.011Z

The Chapel of St George and the English Martyrs
taken a few days ago

Recent visitors to Westminster Cathedral will have noticed that the Chapel of St George and the English Martyrs was temporarily closed to the public about a week ago. I believe that this closure is necessary so that some essential work may be done to the side-chapel's fabric.

The work being carried out involves cleaning the chapel's walls and vaulted roof, rewiring some electrics and also completing its marble frieze. Once all of this has been done, it seems that the Chapel of St George will be the next section of Westminster Cathedral to have its mosaic scheme completed.

Those who are familiar with the Chapel of St George and the English Martyrs know that its altarpiece - which displays Christ the King Crucified surrounded by St Thomas More and St John Fisher - is by Eric Gill, who also carved the Cathedral's magnificent Stations of the Cross. Gill is now much maligned, and rightly so, for his personal sins - many of which were truly heinous. Yet, he remains one of England's finest artists. He is also considered to be the major founder of the influential Arts and Crafts movement.

The More Family (1592) by Lockey, Nostell Priory
(source: Wikimedia Commons - in the public domain)

Not many people know, though, that the chapel's altarpiece originally had a carving of St Thomas More's pet monkey next to the other three figures. This little ape represented the one that lived in More's menagerie in Chelsea - it can be seen (bottom right) in this posthumous portrait of the More family by Rowland Lockey, based on the earlier work of Hans Holbein.

Owing pet monkeys seemed to have been a popular status symbol in 16th century England. Even monarchs kept them. Henry Tudor's monkey once famously destroyed the king's obsessively paranoid notes on his supposed enemies - much to the delight of those at Court who were often unfairly suspected of disloyalty!

Gill had intended the monkey in his altarpiece for Westminster Cathedral to be a symbol of worldly temptation, as well as a true representation of More's own love of animals. He also seemed to have wanted the ape to remind the viewer of man's lowliness. The windows and walls of Christian churches have often displayed animals together with saints, especially those known for their gentleness and humility - i.e. St Francis is nearly always portrayed with birds or other creatures. In that sense, Eric Gill was attempting to explore, in a rather traditional way, the zoological iconography often associated with Catholic saints.

Sadly, though, St Thomas' monkey was removed before the altarpiece was set into place in 1947. Although Eric Gill had carved the spritely creature before he died in November 1940, it had disappeared by the time the Cathedral was able at last to go ahead with those decorative projects that had been planned before the War.

Where had the monkey gone?

I'll leave it to Westminster Cathedral's historian, Patrick Rogers, to answer that question. Writing about the strange episode of the missing monkey in his book Westminster Cathedral: from Darkness to Light (Burns & Oates, Continuum 2003), he says: -

"It was when [the altarpiece] was revealed to the public that the controversy started - for the monkey had been removed. Although Cardinal Hinsley's art committee had approved the design (including the monkey) in 1938-9, the committee had lapsed with the war and Hinsley had been succeeded by Cardinal Griffin in 1943. Griffin was given a private viewing. He saw the monkey, didn't like it and ordered it to be removed.

Then the storm broke out. The Catholic Herald received a very large number of letters on the subject, some of them unpublishable. They revealed that no one had been consulted before the Cardinal's decision - neither Mary Gill (Eric's widow and executor), nor the Cathedral architect, nor even Laurie Cribb [Gill's assistant], who was putting the finishing touches to the carving in situ. Mary Gill subsequently expressed her consternation, pointing out that the altarpiece had not been fully paid for and she would not have parted with it had its fate in the Cathedral been known."

The Chapel of St George and the English Martyrs, Westminster Cathedral
The red circle marks the spot where the monkey once was.
(source: Wikimedia Commons - image released into the public domain)

Amongst those who wrote to the Catholic Herald to protest against the removal of St Thomas More's monkey were Gill's son-in-law, David Tegetmeier, and the well-known artist and Catholic convert, David Jones. The former reminded the Catholic world that Eric Gill intended the monkey to be an integral part of the altarpiece, and that the animal hadn't merely been added on to compliment the Martyr. The latter, known for being a discerning expert on Gill's work, protested that the monkey was the liveliest aspect of the whole work. Jones also went on to claim that by including the primate, Gill "seemed to be thinking of the ape-ishness in man and, further and more important still, of the whole animal creation, suppliant at the Tree."

Of course, some (a total of two) wrote to the Catholic Herald in defence of Cardinal Bernard Griffin's decision. One person suggested that having an image of a monkey in a religious building was inappropriate as it might make people smile. This, the correspondent went on to note, should not be encouraged whilst gazing upon the Crucifixion. Another supporter of the Cardinal's was a Cathedral priest, Fr Arthur Rivers. Probably writing with Griffin's tacit support, and therefore representing the Cardinal's reasons for removing the monkey, Rivers argued that Gill's ape seemed to imply a belief in evolution - a scientific theory that many Catholics were still uncomfortable with at the time.

This is part of what Arthur Rivers wrote: "Whilst [the monkey] possessed the limbs of its kind, it had no tail, and its head and torso were those of a boy. It was also to be noted that its arms were raised - apparently in prayer - towards the Figure on the Cross." He went on to argue that keeping the ape "would have achieved little more than a series of distractions, revolutionary and evolutionary." Within a year of writing his letter to the Catholic Herald, Rivers had been promoted and was appointed the Diocese of Westminster's Financial Secretary. It is probably fair to speculate that Cardinal Griffin was pleased with Fr River's act of loyalty and wished to reward it.

Although, Cardinal Griffin may have had good reasons for removing St Thomas More's monkey, I fear his actions reflect the sometimes draconian nature of authority - even within the Church. It also revealed a certain arrogance on his part, especially when most art historians would agree that images of animals have always been found in church buildings - from the very earliest times. It seems, then, that ecclesiastical vandalism was with us well before the Second Vatican Council. But was Griffin's erasing of monkey a good or bad thing to have done?

Those who visit Westminster Cathedral to venerate the relics of St John Southworth may be wondering where to find him now that the chapel where his body usually lies is closed to the public. As the photo below shows, St John is now being temporarily housed in the Chapel of the Holy Souls - next to St George's.

The Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham's first anniversary - joyful scenes at St James' Spanish Place

2012-01-17T00:03:00.003Z

Mgr Keith Newton preaching at St James' Spanish Place on
the occasion of the Ordinariate's first anniversary
(Marcin Mazur © Mazur/catholicnews.org.uk - source: Flickr)

Hundreds gathered from all over the UK to attend Solemn Evensong, Procession of the Blessed Sacrament and Benediction at St James' Spanish Place on Sunday. The occasion was the celebration of the first anniversary of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham. The church's parish priest, Fr Christopher Colven, kindly gave his permission for the event, which was organised by the Marylebone Ordinariate Group.

Mgr Keith Newton, Ordinary of the Ordinariate, presided over this solemn and joyful act of thanksgiving. He was joined in the sanctuary by Bishop Peter Elliott, Auxiliary Bishop of Melbourne and Episcopal Delegate for the establishment of a Personal Ordinariate in Australia. Also present were Mgr John Armitage of the Diocese of Brentwood, Fr Christopher Colven of St James's, and several Ordinariate clergymen. The Abbot of Farnborough (a former Anglican) and some of the Abbey's monks, as well as representatives of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta and other organisations within the Catholic Church were also present.

Evensong began with Sir Hubert Parry's introit, I was glad. The Responses were set to Bernard Rose's music, whilst the Magnificat and Nunc Dimittis were by Stanford. The congregation joined in the singing of Newman's Praise to the Holiest in the Hight and also sang William Dix's Alleluia! Sing to Jesus! during the Eucharistic Procession - which happened to be an extremely moving experience for me. Elgar's beautiful setting of O Salutaris hostia was used during Benediction, followed by Stanford's Te Deum and Déodat de Séverac's Tantum ergo. St James's Choir did an excellent job in transmitting something of that Anglican musical and liturgical patrimony which the Ordinariate has now brought with it into the universal Church.

During the sermon, Mgr Keith Newton reflected on the great joys and blessings that have come with being in full communion with Rome. He also used some words written by Bl John Henry Newman to express the sense of security that he himself now feels, despite the practical worries that still face the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham. In a letter to Cardinal Herbert Vaughan's father, Newman wrote: "I have not had any feeling whatever but one of joy and gratitude that God called me out of an insecure state into one which is sure and safe, out of the war of tongues and into the realm of peace and assurance. This is my state of mind, and I would it could be brought home to all and every one, who, in default of real arguments for remaining Anglicans, amuse themselves with dreams and fancies."

"Hoc est enim Corpus meum"
"Ut unum sint!"
(Marcin Mazur © Mazur/catholicnews.org.uk - source: Flickr)

Mgr Newton went on to express his gratitude for the things that God has achieved both for himself and for those who followed him into the Ordinariate, saying: "This evening we have much to be joyful and thankful for. For the gifts and spiritual riches of Anglicanism which nurtured our faith; for the warmth of welcome and support we have received from so many Catholics; for the vision, love and faith of our Holy Father, Pope Benedict." He ended his homily with those powerful words once spoken by the late Dag Hammerskold: "For all that has been, thanks. For all that will be, yes."

It was a great privilege to join members of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham for this celebratory evening of thanksgiving. For the first time since its erection last year, I was made fully aware on Sunday of the gifts that the Ordinariate is bringing with it to the wider Catholic Church. It was especially wonderful to witness the Eucharistic Procession - I doubt that most of our Catholic parishes in England and Wales would show as much reverence and love for Our Lord truly present in the Blessed Sacrament.

Sitting in the congregation at St James's for Evensong also confirmed for me that we have an extraordinarily prophetic and wise pontiff in Pope Benedict XVI. Acutely aware that only the Successor of St Peter has the ultimate mandate to secure the unity of Christ’s flock, he seems more than willing to "put out into the deep" (cf Lk 5:4) so that "they may be one" (cf Jn 17:21).

God bless our Pope!
God bless the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham!

[Images: attributed to Marcin Mazur and published under a creative commons licence. For more photos from the event, please visit the Catholic Church in England and Wales' Flickr account]

Guild of Blessed Titus Brandsma - Meeting at Our Lady of the Rosary, 18 February 2012

2012-01-16T23:11:00.004Z

If you happen to be a Catholic blogger or use the new media (Facebook, YouTube, etc) in any way, please keep Saturday 18 February free as the Guild of Blessed Titus Brandsma will be meeting at Our Lady of the Rosary, Blackfen, on that day.

All Catholics who express their faith online, especially bloggers, are welcome to attend this special event.

During the day, Mass will be celebrated and there will also be Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. After a period of worship, Fr Sam Medley SOLT will address those present (as well as possibly those joining us online) on the theme of blogging as an instrument of ecclesial communion. Following lunch, the Guild of Blessed Titus Brandsma will meet to discuss issues that affect those who blog, comment or generally share their Catholic faith on the internet.

I would like to express my gratitude to Fr Tim Finigan who has kindly agreed to host the Guild at his parish once more. Those who were present for the Guild's first meeting during last October's mini-heatwave already know the generous hospitality of Fr Tim and his parish.

More details and a poster will soon be available...

But, for now, please spread the word and make a note of Saturday 18 February in your diaries!

England's other saintly 19th century Cardinal - Henry Manning, second Archbishop of Westminster, promoter of Papal Infallibility and Cardinal of the Seven Sacraments

2012-01-14T14:10:00.028Z

Henry Edward Cardinal Manning in 1883, photo
Alexander Bassano (source: Facebook)

Today is the 120th anniversary of Cardinal Henry Edward Manning's death. The second Archbishop of Westminster died on this day in 1892, after having served as the leader of the Catholic Church in England and Wales for nearly thirty years. His death affected many of London's poorest, who came out in force to pay their respects and pray for his soul. In fact, in terms of attendance, it is well documented that his funeral was the largest ever seen in Victorian England.

Over the next couple of weeks, I hope to write three posts on Cardinal Manning's social work - concentrating specifically on: a) his pioneering efforts within the temperance movement; b) his efforts to save poor Catholic children from the horrors of the Protestant workhouses; and c) his campaigning efforts for workers' rights.

This latter aspect of the Cardinal's concern for justice led to his hero status amongst London's dockers, and also a helped ensure a prominent place for the Catholic Church in England and Wales within the political sphere of the time. Not only did men like Gladstone warm to Catholicism's social teachings through the influence of Manning, but Pope Leo XIII even based his ground-breaking encyclical, Rerum Novarum, on the Cardinal's speeches and writings in support of a just and living wage for working men. This papal document is now lauded as the Church's first encyclical that concerns itself with modern Catholic social teaching.

Today, though, I would simply like to introduce Cardinal Manning to a wider audience. From reading the facts of his life many will probably wonder how it was that Manning's contemporary, Newman, was beatified before him. Although both were subtle rivals in life, it is possibly true to say that Manning was by far the more popular of the two at that time. On the practical and theological level, too, it is true to say that Manning had far more influence on both on the society of his time and on the Church's subsequent teachings. One wonders, then, why it is that he remains largely forgotten. Many agree, then, that it is time now that these two great men were equally honoured in death.

A Brief Biography

Father Henry Manning as he appeared in
Harper's Bazarre (source: Facebook)

Henry Edward Manning was born at Totteridge, Hertfordshire, in 1808, though spent the larger part of his childhood near Sevenoaks in Kent. His father was Governor of the Bank of England for a brief time. He was also a Tory Member of Parliament for over 30 years, representing Lymington. Manning's mother was also from a relatively well-to-do family - her brother eventually became the Lord Mayor of London and was also created a baronet. Manning's parents tended towards the Evangelical wing of the Church of England and after being raised within it, this form of Christianity remained attractive to him well into his middle age.

Henry Manning attended Harrow School from 1822 and subsequently went up to Oxford in 1827 - where he was a student at Balliol College. As an undergraduate, Manning soon earned a reputation for his debating skills, and even rose to become the president of the Oxford Union before graduating with a 1st class degree in Classics - he was immediately followed in this post by the future Prime Minister, William Ewart Gladstone. After briefly considering a career in politics, Henry Manning eventually became a rather lowly civil servant within the Colonial Office. Within two years, though, the young Manning had left this job and was back in Oxford with the intention of being admitted into holy orders within the Church of England.

In 1832, Manning was elected a fellow of Merton College, Oxford, and was ordained into the diaconate. He became an Anglican priest one year later. His rise through the clerical ranks was swift. In part, this was due to his personal holiness and extraordinary intelligence, but it also reflected Manning's prodigious work ethic. He never stopped preaching, campaigning, lecturing and visiting his flock. By the late 1830s, Henry Manning had made a name for himself as the country's leading voice in defence of Christian education. In successfully opposing attempts by the then Government, which wished to convert parochial schools into state schools, Manning became an early champion of what we would nowadays call faith schools. In later life, he was just as vocal, if not more so, in campaigning for Catholic education.

Chichester Cathedral (source: Wikimedia Commons)

In recognition of his efforts, the young priest was appointed Archdeacon of Chichester in 1841. Never one to shirk his responsibilities, Manning immediately decided to make a visitation of all the parishes of his district - a task that he completed less than two years later. It was around this time that John Henry Newman was coming to the end of his career within the Church of England. Manning, although never specifically a follower of Newman, had by then become a supporter of the Tractarian movement. He was also a fine theologian in his own right and was often called upon to preach in Newman's Oxford church, St Mary's. Throughout the 1840s and 50s, Manning also published several volumes of sermons, which - like Newman's - were enormously popular and influential at the time. After Newman's conversion to Catholicism in 1845, Henry Manning to became his replacement of sorts. He was definitely seen as the leading voice of orthodoxy within Anglicanism throughout the late 1840s.

Five years after Newman's conversion, Manning also left the Church of England to become a Catholic and enter into full communion with Rome. He did so soon after the state had intervened in 1850 to reinstate an Evangelical Anglican clergyman who denied the regenerative effects of baptism. The fact that the Anglican communion could be forced to accept heresy through the interference of the representatives of the Queen was too much for Manning. He realised then that the Church of England was unable to be a guarantor of the truth - it was based on Parliament and man-made laws, not the divine mandate of Jesus Christ.

Unlike Newman, though, Manning's conversion to Roman Catholicism seemed more complete (if I can put it like that). He embraced Rome with both arms. Whilst John Henry Newman seemed averse to what is now termed ultramontanism, and to the later doctrine of Papal Infallibility, Manning was a great supporter of the papacy and of the pope as point of unity and ultimate authority. In fact, Manning became a key-player in helping to define the doctrine of Papal Infallibility during the First Vatican Council.

In concentrating on his ecclesial journey, I seem to have forgotten another hugely important part of Manning's early life - his marriage, which I shall now cover. After being admitted to the College of Cardinals in 1875, Manning gained the unofficial and slightly affectionate title: "The Cardinal of the Seven Sacraments." He was called this by his priests because he had once been married - so had by the time of his death been granted all seven sacraments of the Church, including holy matrimony.

His wife was the beautiful Caroline Sargent, daughter of John Sargent, Manning's first rector when he was first made curate of Lavington-with-Graffham in 1833. His marriage to Caroline was a loving and happy one, even if it was tragically cut short. She died childless of consumption (tuberculosis) in 1837. Upon his death as Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster in 1897, a locket was found around Manning's neck. It contained a miniature portrait of Caroline. He had worn this loving memento throughout his life, even as a Catholic Archbishop and a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church.

Now that he no longer had a wife or family to care for and having decided that the Church of England was no real Church, Manning was free to seek full communion with Rome. After spending a long holiday in Rome in 1850, during which time he personally met with Pope Pius IX, Manning decided that it was time to take the plunge. One of the deciding factors in his conversion was the knowledge, after speaking with the Pope, that Anglicans were practically "unknown ... to the Vicar of Jesus Christ." This fact made him realise how "isolated" the Church of England really was.

Cardinal Nicholas Wiseman, first Archbishop of Westminster
(source: The Far Sight blog)

Henry Manning was received into the Catholic Church by Father Brownbill SJ in early April 1851 and was tonsured soon afterwards by Cardinal Nicholas Wiseman - first Archbishop of Westminster, who was keen to welcome this new and high profile convert. Within two months, on Trinity Sunday, Henry Manning was ordained into the sacred priesthood. Considering Manning's devotion to the Holy Spirit and the poor, as well as his zeal for souls, it is interesting to note that his ordination day also happened to be the Feast of St Basil (14 June), whose Mass begins with the introit: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me; wherefore he hath anointed me, to preach the Gospel to the poor he hath sent me" (Lk 4:18; Is 61:1)

Soon after his ordination as a Catholic priest, Manning was sent to Rome to complete his Catholic theological and philosophical studies. Whilst there, his fellow students included his own successor as Archbishop of Westminster, the future Cardinal Hubert Vaughan. Another student, Edward Henry Howard, a relative of the Duke of Norfolk, would also become a cardinal - from the late 1870s until the 1890s there were three great and distinguished English cardinals living concurrently: Manning, Newman and Howard. Vaughan, another towering-figure in the history of the English Church, was created cardinal in 1893.

Although based in Rome for the first few years of his priesthood, Father Manning would exercise his pastoral office in London during the Summer holidays - often hearing confessions in the Jesuit church at Farm Street. In fact, it was at this church that he celebrated his first Mass on 16 June 1851. After his Roman sojourn, it seems that Manning was more happy to resume the life and ministry of a simple parish priest.

In 1857, Father Manning was asked to found a new parish and was therefore appointed the first parish priest of St Mary of the Angels in Bayswater (some people now refer to this parish as 'Notting Hill'). At this time, Manning also founded a community of the Oblates of St Charles to help him care for the parish. He was also appointed provost of the Westminster Metropolitan Chapter by Pope Pius IX around the same period. Needless to say, his sudden rise through the ranks of the clergy was both a surprise to him as well as a cause of concern for his enemies or those who had expected some form of clerical promotion for themselves after having laboured faithfully in the Westminster vineyard for several decades.

During this next few years, Manning's time was largely taken up with visiting the poor, teaching the catechism, lecturing at the local seminary, acting as superior to the Oblates and helping Cardinal Wiseman to run his Chapter. But his main priority at St Mary of the Angels seemed to have been the welfare of his poor and troubled parishioners - whom he referred to as: "my little ones, little by suffering or helplessness, or pitiable because of sin." In fact, it is obvious that he was in his element amongst the poor and dispossessed of that area of London which is now known for being affluent and fashionable. Whilst reflecting on his time in Bayswater, Manning wrote: "Hard years and full of anxiety but full of high peace and independence of the world - the happiest of my life."

St Mary of the Angels Bayswater
(source: Ancient Richborough blog)

The anxieties that faced Father Manning during his years in Bayswater included an open rebellion against his leadership by fellow members of the Metropolitan Chapter. These men resented Manning for several reasons. Firstly, some seemed consumed by jealously at his sudden ordination and subsequent promotions - just like some priests nowadays resent the fast-track ordinations granted to former Anglican priests who have joined the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham. Secondly, others were also highly suspicious of Manning's community at Bayswater, and thought that Cardinal Wiseman was too supportive of the Oblates of St Charles - he should only concern himself with secular priests they thought. Wiseman's coadjutor "with right of succession", a man called Archbishop Errington, backed these ecclesiastical rebels. This led to Errington's eventual removal from office by Rome and subsequently opened the way for Manning to succeed Wiseman.

Needless to say, many secular clergy openly accused Manning of ambition during this time. Some even alleged that he had somehow arranged Archbishop Errington's humiliation. This led to an unfair and simmering resentment by some against Manning throughout the rest of his life. One positive result of this unfortunate episode was the way Father Manning dealt with these malicious men. The fact that throughout this time his primary concern remained the welfare of his flock ensured Cardinal Wiseman's increasing support for him. Manning's obvious skills of diplomacy were also noted by Rome during this period.

Blessed Pope PIus IX in 1873 (source:
Wikimedia Commons)

When Cardinal Wiseman died in 1865, his Chapter asked Pope Pius IX to appoint the man whom he had only recently deposed, namely Archbishop Errington. Needless to say, the Pope was not about to appoint a man who had fallen out of favour with him in such bitter circumstances. Such foolishness on the part of Westminster's Chapter reflected badly on them. At the same time, Father Manning wrote to Rome naming both Archbishop Ullathorne of Birmingham and Bishop Cornthwaite of Beverley (later Leeds) as potential candidates for the newly vacant See of Westminster. In the end, Pope Pius IX ignored the advice of both the Chapter and its provost and chose instead to appoint Manning himself as the second Archbishop of Westminster. One wonders what the Metropolitan Chapter thought of that! One wonders what Manning himself thought!

Henry Manning was consecrated bishop by Archbishop Ullathorne at St Mary Moorfields - Westminster's pro-Cathedral - on 8 June 1865. After receiving the pallium from Rome, the new Archbishop of Westminster was solemnly enthroned in November of that year. He immediately went about working for the relief of the poor within his Diocese and also began building schools, churches and setting up various types of charities. He also bought a plot of land on the site of an old prison, where Westminster Cathedral now stands. Instead of spending money to build a cathedral for his Diocese, though, Manning poured funds into education for the poor. The building of Westminster Cathedral was left to his successor, Cardinal Vaughan.

As I will shortly be covering Cardinal Manning's immense contributions to welfare projects and the Church's social teaching in other posts, I will not go into too much detail concerning these important aspects his tenure as Archbishop of Westminster. Suffice to say that Manning made an enormous contribution to the temperance movement, to Catholic education and saving children from a sort of forced conversion in the Protestant Dr Barnardo's homes. He also had a significant influence on Pope Leo XIII and the Church's modern social teaching.

His writings and speeches on social justice were an orthodox and holy response to poverty and society's oppression of its most vulnerable, unlike the Marxist inspired movements that have infiltrated the post-Conciliar Church of our own day. Having said that, though, Cardinal Manning's image was often carried aloft by London's workers alongside banners depicting Karl Marx. He also reputedly said: "What you call socialism, I call Christianity." Needless to say, he meant that Catholic teaching places a greater emphasis on justice and freedom from oppression than that which is found within the truncated and often atheistic pages of Marx's Das Kapital. In that sense, with its divine and fully human aspects, Christianity is ultimately more radical than socialism could ever dream of being.

For now, though, I would like to reflect mainly upon Henry Manning's role as defender of the papacy and promoter of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.

The First Vatican Council with Pope Pius IX enthroned
(source: Ite ad Thomam blog)

Manning happened to be present in Rome when the convocation of the First Vatican Council was announced during the celebrations for the eighteenth centenary of SS Peter and Paul. He was subsequently invited to participate in the Council and returned to Rome in 1869, arriving for its opening ceremony on 8 December. Manning was placed on the "De Fide" committee, which in March 1870 was given the responsibility of dealing with the specific issue of Papal Infallibility. Cardinal Manning was an influential advocate of the Successor of St Peter's infallibility in matters of faith and morals. And by the middle of the following July, the committee issued the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor aeternus, which defined the doctrine that when speaking ex cathedra and with a proper intention the Roman Pontiff speaks infallibly.

On his return to England, Manning had to deal with the exaggerated and frankly over the top response of the British Government to the First Vatican Council's decree on Papal Infallibility. The Prime Minister and Manning's contemporary at Oxford, William Gladstone, had even threatened to send a British gun-boat down the Tiber to stop the Council when he heard about Pastor aeternus. Gladstone had also openly questioned the loyalty of those Catholics throughout the British Empire whom he now thought would be drones of the Pope.

Prime Minister William Gladstone
(source: Wikimedia Commons)

In response to this hysteria, Henry Manning immediately published three pastoral letters under the title Petri Privilegium. These letters not only restored sanity to the debate, but also eloquently answered both Gladstone's concerns and even helped many Catholics to properly understand the decree on Papal Infallibility. In 1878, Cardinal Manning also published "True Story of the Vatican Council", which countered the false and rather bizarre statements about Vatican I that had by then obtained credence within the British press.

A few years before his own death Pope Pius IX raised Archbishop Manning to the cardinalate. Manning received the red hat in 1875, after being summoned to Rome by the saintly Pope. He was also given the titular church of SS Andrew and Gregory - which had once been the home of Pope St Gregory the Great. It was from this church that St Augustine of Canterbury had been sent with the mission of converting the English.

After Pius IX died, Cardinal Manning took part in the 1878 conclave that elected Pope Leo XIII. It seems that he himself had also been also been one of the contenders for the Throne of St Peter, and it is known that he received at least a few votes. As I will discuss in a later post, Pope Leo greatly admired Manning. He would often rely on his counsel and he himself referred privately to his greatest encyclical as really being "Manning's". At the time, Bishop John Hedley OSB of Newport and Menevia even declared openly that Rerum Novarum "owes something to the counsels of Cardinal Manning."

A poster from the 1889 London Dock Strike
(source: Wikimedia Commons)

Cardinal Manning's busiest time in terms of hard graft came towards the end of his life, when, for example, he became a pivotal figure in the London Dock Strike of 1889. It was at this time, too, that his missionary zeal for saving souls from the ruin of alcoholic addiction came to fruition - he held four annual total abstinence parades in London, which attracted more crowds than anyone had ever seen before. He also continued to build up the Catholic Church in England and Wales, ensuring that all Catholic children, and especially the poorest, were given every opportunity to practice their faith without being coerced into Protestant penal institutions, which were partly designed as a means of converting the impoverished working and under classes.

Manning's tomb, Westminster Cathedral
photo taken this afternoon

After an illness that lasted two years, Cardinal Henry Manning died peacefully on 14 January 1892. Thousands of London's poorest thronged to his house near where Westminster Cathedral now stands to pay their respects and to see him lying in state. It also seemed as if the whole of London came out to his funeral Mass at the Brompton Oratory - the only church which was then big enough to deal with such numbers (the then pro-Cathedral, Our Lady of Victories, Kensington, would have been inadequate). Tens of thousands also crowded along the way that led to Manning's resting place in Kensal Green cemetery. His body was later moved to Westminster Cathedral, where he now lies buried in the crypt next to Cardinal Wiseman.

One of the Church's lesser known traditions is that cardinals are often buried with their galeros (red hats) hanging above their tombs. The idea being that the disintegrating symbol of ecclesiastic honour mirrored the rotting of the man's corpse sealed within the sepulchre below. A little tradition also arose that the interred cardinal's soul would have completed his time in Purgatory and entered Heaven once his hat had turned to dust. It is interesting to note that of all the galeros that hang in Westminster Cathedral, Manning's is the only one whose tassels have practically completely rotted away.

Next: Cardinal Manning, the dockers of London and the Church's social teaching

More pictures to follow.

Link: There is now a Facebook page dedicated to Cardinal Manning.

Sources: The main sources used for this post are: the New Advent Catholic Encyclopaedia's article on Henry Manning; the Wikipedia entry on Cardinal Manning; Lytton Strachey 's Eminent Victorians (1918); the Sequere Me blog; and Fr A B Swift's article on "Manning and his Social Work", Westminster Chronicle (1951).

It's mid-January and some shops are already celebrating Easter - What, if anything, should Christians do about this?

2012-01-13T00:03:00.008Z

This photo was taken yesterday afternoon. It was taken inside the M&S store in Cardinal Place - the shopping centre opposite Westminster Cathedral. The stand was not the only one in the shop. In fact, there were also several other Easter-related goods dotted around the food section.

Although Christmastide seems to have come to an end in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, it really doesn't seem appropriate to have Eastertide products in our shops at this time of the year. Of course, it's also worth remembering that the Christmas season won't really come to an end in the Extraordinary Form until Candlemas Day, which is on 2 February. Many of our churches and homes will still have their Christmas cribs on display until that day. Traditional Christians, then, are still reflecting on Christmas and the Epiphany.

This year, Ash Wednesday falls on 22 February, Passiontide begins on 25 March, and Holy Week starts with Palm Sunday on 1 April. Easter Sunday itself falls on 8 April. From this photo, though, it would seem that the market-place has already reached the end of March or the beginning of April. One wonders, though, whether M&S would sell specialist food for Eid al-Fitr over a month before Ramadan had begun, or Hallow-e'en masks around the beginning of July?

Knowing that Christmas is barely over, that Lent is six weeks away, and that it's over 12 weeks until Easter Sunday, why are shops already stocking and selling Easter eggs, Simnel cakes and chocolate bunnies?

Why can't supermarkets and grocery chains just wait until the appropriate time before trying to make a buck out of our Christian festivals?

It seems that some retail businesses have no shame nowadays. They definitely appear to have no sense of timing. In that respect, it's rather sad to see that so many of our high street chains lack simple decency in the way they treat holy times and seasons, in their shameless desire to use religion as a means of making money.

I felt rather depressed to see this Easter egg display. It seemed to be yet another sign of the modern world's obsession with the cult of Mammon, that ungodly turbo-charged form of capitalism which Pope Benedict XVI has often condemned. It also appeared to me to be an example of society's religious illiteracy and unintentional contempt for Christian traditions.

Some people will have no qualms in buying these items well before it's appropriate to do so. Businesses tend to respond to the laws of supply and demand. But, surely Christians should resist scoffing on chocolate Easter eggs at this time of year? Maybe, we should even ask high street businesses to respect our liturgical calendar and show at least some restraint?

I'd suggest that we may also need to remind high street chain stores that such consumerism, with scant regard to the time of year or the season we find ourselves in, is just tasteless at best and indecent at worst.

The Ordinariate's first anniversary - Evensong, Benediction and Eucharistic Procession at St James' Spanish Place

2012-01-11T16:30:00.000Z

The Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham will be celebrating its first anniversary this coming Sunday, 15 January. In thanksgiving, the Ordinary, Mgr Keith Newton, will celebrate Evensong and Benediction on that day at 5:00pm in St James's church, Spanish Place. A Procession of the Blessed Sacrament will follow Benediction. This act of worship and thanksgiving is open to all, and will be followed by a reception.

I was never an Anglican, but have always liked the service of Evensong - which roughly corresponds to a shortened and combined version of the offices of Vespers and Compline. I used to attend it both at Bangor and Norwich cathedrals from time to time. On occasion, I still go to Evensong at Westminster Abbey - with its world-famous choir. It'll therefore be very interesting to hear this very Anglican service sung in a Catholic church - a first for me.

Please do continue to support the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham - both through your prayers and any practical assistance you are able to offer.

The Vatican - Albino monks with their secret files? Actually, more like a few overworked people with access to Wikipedia

2012-01-11T00:40:00.012Z

If it's ok for the Holy See...
Archbishop Willem Eijk
as found on Wikipedia

It has been revealed that the Vatican press office relied heavily on Wikipedia whilst preparing its press release on Pope Benedict XVI's recent announcement that 22 new cardinals will be created in February. It appears that Wikipedia - the online and sometimes unreliable encyclopaedia - was simply copied and pasted, often word for word, in the Holy See's briefing notes to journalists.

The Telegraph reported on Monday that Sandro Magister, a world-renowned 'Vaticanologist', spotted the blunder whilst carefully reading through the Vatican's notes on the newly nominated cardinals. His suspicions were first raised when he noticed that the briefing notes referred to all the various nominees as "Catholics" - a rather obvious fact one would have thought!

After further investigations, Magister discovered that Archbishop Willem Jacobus Eijk of Utrecht had been described by the Holy See's press office as "distinguishing himself by having greatly improved the situation of the dioceses of Groningen, which had experienced turbulent times." It appears that these words - which seem unusually opinionated for Vatican approved statement on one of the Church's bishops - were "lifted" directly from the Italian language Wikipedia entry on the Archbishop.

Another embarrassing element in the notes on the Dutch archbishop was the Wikipedia based observation that he had "a strong leaning towards conservatism, particularly in regards to abortion and homosexuality". Needless to say, it's rather unfortunate for the Holy See to appear to suggest that there is something 'conservative' or noteworthy about a bishop who supports life and defends the family. As many commentators have pointed out that there tends to be a liberal, if not sometimes anti-Christian, bias in many Wikipedia articles - hence the description of Eijk's views as 'conservative' rather than 'Catholic'.

According to the Telegraph, Father Federico Lombardi SJ, who heads the Vatican's press office, said his staff used Wikipedia as they were in a hurry to produce the briefing notes and had not been given the list of appointees in advance. His team, he said, had simply been trying to help correspondents when they released details on the cardinals following the Pope's announcement last Friday. Fair enough. But many others, including bloggers, were aware of the names of most of the newly named cardinals well before the official announcement on 6 January.

After being alerted by Jane Mossendew (Thoughts from a Catholic Oasis) to another Sandro Magister article - both were published on 28 December - it seems that I knew the predicted names of those who were to be created cardinals even before Fr Lombardi. It seems that Magister's predictions were spot on, too. So if Magister - and his followers - knew who the new cardinals were going to be nearly two weeks before the Pope announced the consistory, surely the Vatican press office would also have had an inkling as to their names before the end of last week? Maybe not.

Many people, both inside and outside the Church, seem to think that the Vatican is staffed by drone-like albino monks who hold files on everyone and everything. The same people probably also imagine that the Holy See is so wealthy that its employees have access to the best IT the world has to offer - the type of technology one sees in a Bond movie. In recent times we have even seen some commentators in the secular press responding to the clerical abuse crisis by displaying apoplectic rage in their demands for so-called Vatican 'secret files' be made public. The reality, though, is nothing like the Protestant fundamentalist or the Dan Brown inspired myth.

It is probably true to say, then, that the common notion seems to be that those who work for the Holy See can find out anything about anyone at the tough of a button, or that they are so dedicated to the Church that they are somehow no longer human. Thankfully, this most recent story should help put pay to that rather naive misconception.

Forget about the Vatican's secret archives - try Wikipedia instead!

Note on the newly named Cardinals: -

One of the men appointed to the College of Cardinals was Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York. In recent times, he has firmly defended the important truth that marriage can only ever exist between one man and one woman, and that this beautiful institution is both the foundation stone of the family and of human society itself. He will be given the red hat even though his predecessor, Edward, Cardinal Egan, will not reach his 80th birthday until April this year - the age at which members of the College of Cardinals lose their right to vote at papal conclaves.

It has commonly been held that the Pope does not create a new cardinal if a voting-age one already exists within a particular diocese. In elevating Archbishop Dolan to the cardinalate, Pope Benedict XVI has shown that exceptions can always be made to this unofficial rule. Needless to say, by the time Cardinal-elect Dolan receives his red hat on 18 February, there will only be 2 months remaining before Cardinal Egan actually does lose his right to vote in any future papal conclave. In that sense, it seems prudent to raise Egan to the cardinalate during the forthcoming Consistory.

One name that did not appear on the list of newly appointed cardinals was Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Westminster. Of course, it is true to say that one of the reasons for this is probably because his predecessor, Cormac, Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor, is still eligible to vote in papal conclaves. Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor is not yet 80-years-old. He will be soon, though - on 24 August this year to be precise. That will only be 6 months after the newly announced Consistory.

One wonders, then, whether Archbishop Nichols would have been appointed to the Sacred College if his predecessor, like Edward Egan, had been born four months earlier? I guess we will never know.

[Image: Archbishop Willem Eijk of Utrecht; this image is attributed to Carolus and is published under a creative commons licence; source: Wikimedia Commons]

Courageous leadership - Let's support these two bishops who recently made the headlines for all the right reasons

2012-01-08T10:20:00.001Z

Rt Rev Michael Campbell OSA
Bishop of Lancaster
(source: Wikimedia Commons)

A few days ago I wrote about two bishops who were recently in the news for the wrong reasons. Today, I would like to balance the spreadsheet, so to speak, by highlighting two exemplary bishops who were also in the news during the past week. The first is Archbishop John Nienstedt of St Paul and Minneapolis, the other is Bishop Michael Campbell of Lancaster. Both men made the headlines for their courageous leadership. They deserve to be praised.

On Friday, LifeSite News reported that Archbishop Nienstedt had recently urged his clergy to avoid any public dissent on the issue of 'gay marriage'. Writing to his priests, he told them that they must not publicly contradict the Church’s teaching. He also requested them to refrain from opposing the Archdiocese's attempts to amend the state constitution - which, if successful, would result in securing the definition of marriage as being the union of one man and one woman.

In an email to all his clergy, the Archbishop of St Paul and Minneapolis quoted at length from a speech he had given during a recent study day for priests. Referring to the attacks being made on marriage and the family by advocates of so-called 'gay marriage', the Archbishop had this to say to his co-workers: "The gravity of this struggle, and the radical consequences of inaction propels me to place a solemn charge upon you all. On your ordination day, you made a promise to promote and defend all that the Church teaches. I call upon that promise in this effort to defend marriage. There ought not be open dissension on this issue."

There was a time when open rebellion and dissent amongst the clergy was the preserve of a handful of eccentrics and cranks. Bishops hardly ever had to remind their priests of the solemn duty incumbent upon them to defend and promote the teachings of the Catholic Church. As we all know, in some places those days of obedience and humility have long gone. Dissent is routine. Priests and laity often wilfully choose to ignore the precepts of Christ and his Church. These people are sometimes even supported by their bishops.

Therefore, in insisting that his priests do what is expected of them, Archbishop Nienstedt is being quite courageous. He is willing to stick his head above the parapet and challenge the culture of disobedience and dissent that seems to have infected parts of the Church.

Addressing his diocese in a New Year's Day pastoral letter, Bishop Michael Campbell of Lancaster dared to ask whether it was right for parishioners to pay for the upkeep of so-called Catholic schools where the majority of pupils and teachers have no allegiance to the Church. In speaking out on this issue, Bishop Campbell indicated that his diocese will not be following the seemingly secular culture that prevails within Catholic education departments in other parts of the Church in England and Wales.

According to the Telegraph, Bishop Campbell's comments "will be welcomed by traditionalists who want church [sic] schools to retain their Christian ethos, but will be seen as controversial elsewhere." It's true to say that many traditional commentators maintain that the Church in England and Wales has been deliberately watering-down the Catholic-ethos of its schools over the past few decades. They also believe that certain education advisers working for the Church wish to see Catholic schools becoming more secular than Christian - "inclusive" towards non-Catholics, whilst excluding Catholicism itself!

Many people, especially parents, fear that the Catholic faith has been pushed out of our Church schools in recent years. Some teachers and educators who work in our Catholic schools also appear to resent the Church's teachings on such issues as homosexuality and abortion - I speak as one who spent a week as an observer within a respected Catholic school. It's also true to say that some teachers are actually undermining the Faith from inside our Catholic schools. They are engaging in a type of counter-evangelisation - turning children away from Catholicism, as opposed to encouraging them to explore its life-transforming and freedom-giving message of truth and love.

This intolerable situation, where Catholic schools and colleges appear to have adopted an anti-Catholic ethos brings to my mind something that a bishop shared with me a few years ago. Although he probably never expressed his views in this way to his brother-bishops, this now deceased bishop once told me that he was of the opinion that many Catholic schools were actively dissuading boys from exploring vocations to the priesthood. He went on to claim that children educated in the state sector often had a better chance of discerning priestly vocations than those who received a Church-sponsored schooling.

The Telegraph also reported that more than 80% of pupils at some schools in the Diocese of Lancaster are not Catholic. The newspaper also mentioned that one Catholic primary school is about to be converted into an Islamic faith school in the neighbouring Diocese of Salford, because the vast majority of its pupils are currently Muslim. Bishop Campbell, who stressed in his pastoral letter that "[t]he Church only exists to evangelise", wondered why local Catholics in the northern England were expected to support educational institutions that no longer seemed fit for purpose.

The Bishop's letter also reminded the people of Lancaster that: "buildings, churches, parishes, schools and colleges are only valuable insofar as they help the Church in that mission of salvation." Reflecting on the fact that the majority of those who attend Catholic schools are not themselves Catholic, Bishop Campbell went on to ask "Is it right or sustainable to expect our Mass-going population of 21,000 to support our schools and colleges in which often the majority of pupils, and sometimes teachers, are not practising Catholics?"

In emphasising that Catholic schools exist to provide a Catholic education, the Bishop of Lancaster has raised some very valid and important points. When Catholic schools end up becoming "Catholic in name only", is it right for them to retain their Catholic status? Why should a school be called Catholic, when its teachers have little or no interest in the Catholic faith, or even sometimes demonstrate a barely concealed hostility towards the Gospel? In asking these questions, Bishop Campbell has demonstrated a courageous willingness to grapple with reality and to also act radically for the Gospel's sake.

Needless to say, there was a time, not that long ago, when it was accepted that the first duty of every Catholic school was to provide a Catholic education to Catholic children. Bishops did not have to remind educators and parents of their school's duty to conform to the Church's basic teachings. It would also have been unthinkable a few decades ago to see so-called Catholic schools promoting gay marriage and abortion, amongst many other anti-Christian social policies. Nowadays, though, it sadly seems as if the teaching of these errors is de rigueur in some Church-run educational establishments.

In choosing to question the prevailing attitude that appears to have swept through the Catholic education services in England and Wales, Bishop Michael Campbell is providing leadership that is both brave and wise. He is not afraid to speak the truth in love and to ask some difficult questions. He is obviously aware of his duty as a bishop - even if that means being at variance with the policies espoused by many of his brother-bishops in other parts of the local Church. In that respect, Bishop Campbell is witnessing to an important aspect of what Christian leadership is all about - the willingness, when needed, to swim against the tide.

It's probably fair to say that only a few decades ago, neither of these two bishops would have been considered remarkable for defending marriage or Catholic education. Most people prior to the 1960s and 70s would have known that Catholic bishops are obliged to defend the truth and govern the Church with wisdom, justice and real charity. Nowadays, though, it seems that men who speak up for the Church from within the episcopacy are deemed newsworthy. That speaks volumes.

In some parts of the world, men like the Archbishop of St Paul and Minneapolis and the Bishop of Lancaster are actually being episcopally counter-cultural. They are putting their heads above the ecclesiastical parapet and swimming against the episcopal tide. For that reason, then, it is imperative that laypeople support bishops like John Nienstadt and Michael Campbell. Courage like theirs needs to be bolstered by the prayers and good will of their flock.

[Image: Bishop Michael Campbell OSA; this image has been released into the public domain by its author, Lancaster Cathedral; source: Wikimedia Commons]

Rick Santorum for US President - Praying that this God-fearing candidate will become the people's choice in 2012

2012-01-06T00:45:00.020Z

Rick Santorum - a man devoted to the truth

Since coming a very close second to Mitt Romney in the 2012 Iowa Republican caucuses on 3 January, Rick Santorum is now a serious contender to win that party's nomination in this year's US Presidential election campaign. Fortunes change. Only a few weeks ago, Santorum had been dismissed by the mainstream American press for supposedly being out of touch, irrelevant or a no hoper. Now we see that the American people are beginning to think otherwise. They know an honest man when they see one.

European history is littered with the odd saintly monarch, such as St Louis IX of France or St Edward the Confessor. These men ruled as unashamedly devoted followers of Jesus Christ. They cared for the poor, for justice and for the lives of all their subjects. They built churches and helped the Church's mission. Their reigns were wedded to the truth of the Beatitudes and they humbly served their people, taking Christ as their pattern. So far, though, there haven't been many saints within the ranks of non-crowned heads of state. Maybe it's because kings and queens owe their positions to God, whilst presidents are at the mercy of opinion polls? Also, of course, post-Enlightenment republics tend to obsess about the so-called separation of Church and state - which can make things difficult if their politicians aspire to be saints, too!

It might be, though, that if Santorum (a name that actually means "saint") was elected the next President of the United States, the people of that great land will also gain their first potentially saintly leader (in the religious and Catholic sense, that is). After 230 years, it's time that Americans had a devoted and truly Christian President, even if a few Protestants have brought some Christ-centred faith into the Oval Office from time to time. Political leaders like Rick Santorum, who truly serve God, will always seek the good of the people they work for, whilst those whose primary obedience is to the shifting sands of public opinion invariably find it very difficult to conform both privately and publicly to what is truly right and just.

Santorum knows this. He has already mentioned that if elected US President he would not be another Jack Kennedy - Catholic in name only. His Christianity motivates both his private conscience and his public policy. He wears his faith on his sleeve, and if people don't want a man who is loyal to Christ as their political leader, then more fool them. As many have already noted, Rick Santorum isn't going to water-down his religious convictions or reject his privately held morality in order to secure the Presidency. In fact, he trusts that people will be attracted to the truth and to a man who is willing to defend it - standing firm and not bending to the whims of the pollsters. With Santorum, what you see is what you get. People like that. Media pundits, though, are mystified by it.

So far in his public career, Rick Santorum has spoken his mind freely on a range of issues that many politicians - especially here in Europe - would shy away from. He has openly and unapologetically declared himself to be pro-life and has also stated that he would oppose 'gay marriage', even to the point of invalidating the ones that might already have been contracted in the various States that recognise homosexual unions. On social issues, like poverty, Santorum also tends to adhere to the Church's teaching - ensuring care for society's most vulnerable members, whilst also wanting a safer, more secure and ultimately peaceful world. He believes in the inherent sanctity of work, but also knows that the 'widow and orphan', so to speak, need compassion and mercy. Santorum would also take a firm stand to ensure that nations like Iran would no longer be in a position to hold other sovereign states to ransom - although his desire for another war is worrying. I also quite like the fact that Santorum has called the hysteria surrounding climate change "junk science" - but don't tell the Pope that, as he's a keen personal advocate of the green movement!

In his private life, former Senator Santorum has had to endure many hardships, which he has always borne with grace and an exemplary acceptance of God's will. His greatest cross must have been when he and his wife, Karen, tragically lost a child a few years ago. Another of their six remaining children suffers from a serious genetic illness. Yet, Santorum has even shown great serenity and peace in the face of his enemies' taunts - which have often been horrifically personal and also unjustly directed at his family (some even making 'jokes' about the way he and his wife chose to mark their child's death). He retains the joy of one who is deeply devoted to Christ and his Church. of one who knows the true value of human life. He is unashamedly proud to be a Catholic, and a traditional one at that. Unlike the Kennedys, then, his religious faith is not merely used as a political tool (even if some of them were also religious). Catholicism for Santorum is not a means of garnering the Irish, Italian or Latino vote. It is something to which he and his family are deeply attached.

In fact, Rick Santorum, along with Karen and their children, regularly attend the weekly Solemn Mass in Latin at their local Catholic church, St Catherine of Siena, Great Falls VA - at which it seems that Gregorian chant is the norm. Santorum is also an active Knight of Malta. He was also present in Rome to mark the 100th anniversary of St Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer's birth at a special Opus Dei celebration. At that event nearly 10-years ago to the day, he told the well-known Catholic journalist, John Allen, that President Kennedy's distinction between private religious conviction and public responsibility had caused "great harm in America". He went on to add: "All of us have heard people say, 'I privately am against abortion, homosexual marriage, stem cell research, cloning. But who am I to decide that it's not right for somebody else?' It sounds good, but it is the corruption of freedom of conscience." Now, there's a man who believes what he says, and says what he believes - a very rare politician indeed!

Already, many Catholics and other Christians, as well as people of good will from a wide range of beliefs, are rejoicing to see that this God-fearing man is now closer to making it into the White House than he was only a few days ago. It even seems that Santorum-mania has caught on over on this side of the pond, too - especially amongst some of the UK's Catholic bloggers. Anthony Radice at A Tiny Son of Mary has started a Rosary Crusade for the intention of getting Santorum elected (called "Rosaries for Rick"), whilst Richard Collins at Linen on the Hedgerow recently recalled that the nuns who taught him encouraged the whole school to pray for JFK in 1960 - with the intention that a Catholic would become leader of the free world. As Richard points out: "The odds have never bothered God so why should they bother us."

With that in mind, then, I for one - although not an American and therefore obviously having no actual vote in the US Presidential elections - will be casting a spiritual vote by joining others in praying the Rosary for Rick Santorum. I invite those who read this post to join me in saying a Rosary for Rick .

Not wanting to prematurely canonise Santorum, I truly believe that if he were to become the 45th President of the United States, that country would have gained its first properly saintly leader. Without wanting to judge JFK - the only Catholic to have been elected to the White House so far - too harshly, either, I think it fair to say that the 35th President was no saint. In that sense, the fact that Rick Santorum is currently a real contender for the Republican nomination is surely a cause for joy. Be sure, though, that those who hate life, truth and the Gospel's profound liberty, will do all that they can to attack this good man. For that reason, please pray for Rick Santorum and his family - remembering that "with God, nothing is impossible" (cf Lk 1:37).

[Image: Republican Presidential hopeful, Rick Santorum; this image is in the public domain and is the work of the US federal government; source: Wikimedia Commons]

Scandalous bishops in the news - In dealing with them, Pope Benedict XVI would do well to follow St Pius V's example

2012-01-05T18:20:00.018Z

Pope St Pius V - he knew how to deal with
scandalous clergy!

A couple of bishops have been in the news recently for all the wrong reasons. The first is the disgraced former Bishop of Antigonish in Nova Scotia, Raymond Lahey. He received a pre-served 15-month prison sentence today for possession of child pornography. The second is Gabino Zavala, a former auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. His resignation was recently accepted by the Vatican, after it came to light that he had fathered two children with the same woman many years ago.

It is a grave enough matter when laypeople cause scandal, but when bishops and priests show themselves to be "of the devil" (1 Jn 3:8) by falling into despicably sinful ways of life, the damage to the Church and her mission can be tremendous.

Not only do I feel for the victims of these men's selfish and depraved actions (Zavala should have left the ordained ministry to care for his children, whilst the victims of Lahey's depravity are obvious), but I also sympathise with the people of God who once trusted them with child-like love and obedience. Needless to say, thanks to the utterly shameful deeds of these two bishops, it will take a long time for the Church in Los Angeles and Nova Scotia to regain the trust she needs if she is to effectively preach the Gospel. This is why such scandal is such a grave matter - it damages lives and leads souls away from salvation.

Who knows what God has in store for these two errant apostles. All we know is that Jesus Christ warned those men who scandalise his "little ones" of the dire penalties that await them: "But he that shall scandalise one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea" (Mt 18:6). If this is what they both have to look forward to, as a fellow human being I feel sorry for Lahey and Zavala, too. Whilst wanting to see them punished for their sins, I cannot but help feeling the need to pray that God will, ultimately, be merciful to them. We are all sinners, after all - even if the sins of bishops and priests cast longer and darker shadows over the earth.

The Holy Father must now realise the important need to carefully scrutinise all candidates for the episcopacy that come his way. Those who live scandalous lives, even those clerics who live in non-sexual exclusive relationships with others, should be penalised, not promoted. It is also important for the Church to be seen to act justly in her internal affairs. Once a high ranking cleric has been caught in flagrante delicto, so to speak, or found guilty through due process, he needs to be punished appropriately - even to the point of losing his clerical state if needs be.

Fortunately, Pope Benedict XVI has already clearly stated that he is aware of the fact that the Church has been too soft in the way she deals with errant clergy since the "all you need is love" days of the 1960s. In his series of interviews with Peter Seewald, Light of the World (2010), the Pope had this to say about the way the Church has been too lenient with scandalous priests in the recent, post-Conciliar, past: -

"[A]n awareness that punishment can be an act of love ceased to exist. This led to an odd darkening, of the mind, even in very good people... Today we have to learn all over again that love for the sinner and love for the person who has been harmed are correctly balanced if I punish the sinner in the form that is possible and appropriate. In this respect there was in the past a change of mentality, in which the law and the need for punishment were obscured. Ultimately this also narrowed the concept of law, which in fact is not only just being nice or courteous, but is found in the truth. And another component of the truth is that I must punish the one who has sinned against real love." (emphasis mine).

One of the great things about the Catholic Church is that bishops, although being apostles in their own right, are also accountable to the Pope, who is chief amongst the apostles. They are not free to rule as dictators, and when they stray from being united to Christ, either through grave sin or heresy, a higher judge than they can deprive them of their office - even if it is rare for the Bishop of Rome to intervene in such a way. Those who are aware of any scandal involving bishops, then, should, in justice and love, let Rome know. Otherwise, who will keep the Church in check, who will keep her balanced?

One saintly Pontiff who was not afraid to deprive and punish scandalous clergy - bishops and priests, alike - was Pope St Pius V. He had no qualms insisting that his clerics be saintly men, and was more than willing to remove bad apples from within the clergy - even if it meant their execution at the hands of the secular authorities!

In his Apostolic Constitution Horrendum illus scelus, 30 August 1568*, Pope Pius V had this to say concerning any cleric who had been found guilty of committing the grave sin of sodomy (which could mean homosexuality and also a wider range of sexual sins):-

Therefore, wishing to pursue with greater rigour than we have exerted since the beginning of our pontificate, we establish that any priest or member of the clergy, either secular or regular, who commits such an execrable crime, by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, let him be immediately delivered to the secular authority to be put to death, as mandated by law as the fitting punishment for laymen who have sunk into this abyss.

Now that's one way of reforming the clergy and dealing with errant men within the ordained ministry! One wonders whether Bishops Lahey and Zavala would have acted in such deceitful, harmful and sexually selfish ways if they had the saintly Pius V ruling over them?

Of course, for modern readers, Pope St Pius V's decree seems a bit too harsh. Now that states tend not to punish men for sodomy, to insist on capital punishment for sexually depraved priests might be considered a bit extreme. Nevertheless, reflecting on how the Church used to deal with bad clergymen helps us realise how she recently seems to have moved to the other extreme. From being too draconian centuries ago, the Church has become too lenient in recent times.

It is good, therefore, that our current Pontiff is more than willing to challenge the misconception that Christian love means letting people get away with scandalous behaviour scot-free. Pope Benedict XVI has stated clearly that true love sometimes requires punishment for sins committed by priests. Those clerics who cause scandal need to accept the consequences of their actions. We can only hope, then, that the Pope will act swiftly with men like Lahey and Zavala. Let them not only be deprived of their offices, but let them be justly laicised as soon as is possible. True and just love demands it.

[Image: Pope St Pius V by El Greco (c 1600-1610); this image is in the public domain; source: Wikimedia Commons]

* Thank you to the anonymous commentator who pointed out that I had typed the wrong date here. It has now been amended.

Note: Soon I plan to write a series of posts on Cardinal Manning, the saintly Archbishop of Westminster, especially concentrating on his various social welfare projects.

Inverting the Pope's words - How 'progressive' movements in the Church prefer to quote the Holy Father out of context

2012-01-04T00:05:00.035Z

Before his election as Pope Benedict XVI, it is well documented that Cardinal Razinger sometimes reflected on the fact that orthodox and traditional Catholics have been made to feel unwelcome in their own Church over the past 40 years or so. Even as Pope he has inferred the same. Both the publication of Summorum Pontificum and the Vatican's outreach to the SSPX witness to the Holy Father's personal desire to make traditional and traditionalist Catholics feel welcome once more within their own Church. His collected writings also suggest that the Pope is aware that many Catholics have been unjustly treated due to an over-zealous application of some of the "spirit of Vatican II" reforms.

Any objective observer of the facts would have to agree that since the implementation of the exaggerated and false interpretations of Vatican II, many (traditional) Catholics have been made to feel like aliens in their own home. Also, it it true to say that whilst it seems every effort has been made since the Second Vatican Council to accommodate the Church's real (internal) enemies, especially those with personal axes to grind against her moral teachings, those who would gladly shed their blood for Christ and the Sacrifice of the Mass have become personae non gratae in many western dioceses.

In an address to the Catholic Bishops of France at Lourdes on 14 September 2008, one year on from the publication of Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict XVI explained that one of the primary reasons behind the issuing of this document was the need to let all Catholics know that they are welcome and valued members of the Church. Everyone, he said, especially those attached to the usus antiquior and to the everlasting truths of the faith, should find a home in the Church - including the Lefebvrists as well as those who have always been loyal to Rome. In fact, here is part of what he said to the French bishops when urging them to show pastoral care for those attached to the old Rite: -

"Everyone has a place in the Church, every person without exception should be able to feel at home and never rejected" (emphasis mine).

Recently, I noticed that this very same quote appears on the pro-homosexual Soho Masses website. Although the words are attributed to Benedict XVI on the website homepage, no mention is made of the fact that they were given to the French bishops and were spoken with a specific reference to traditional Catholics and those attached to the usus antiquior.

Taken out of context, as they are on the Soho Masses website, the Holy Father's words seem to imply that he was calling on the Church to provide a place of affirmation within her structures to anyone (Catholic or not), including sexually active homosexuals and / or those with a pro-gay rights' agenda - the Soho Masses group has gained a reputation for promoting the cause of dissenting homosexuals within the Church. In reality, though, Pope Benedict XVI used these words specifically in relation to those traditional and orthodox Catholics who have often and unjustly been made to feel unwelcome as members of the Church since some dioceses appeared to collapse into Modernism during the latter half of the 20th century.

To demonstrate that his words reflected a primary concern for the welfare of those loyal to the truth and the ancient traditions of the Church, as opposed to those with with axes to grind against Catholicism, Pope Benedict XVI even suggested himself in the same address that the Church in some parts of the world had fallen into error. He implied that in some places, the Church's moral and doctrinal teachings had been compromised by so-called members - specifically those who have no qualms in campaigning against Scripture and Tradition from within the Catholic fold.

Quoting St Paul, the Pope emphasised that the French bishops needed to ensure good and correct catechises and liturgy, so that the truth may be preached even when it's not popular to do so, and so they may be able to guard against the appointment of teachers (ordained or lay) who preach a message to "their own liking". Here is what the Holy Father said: -

"'For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths' (2 Tim 4:3-4). Recognising the truth of [St Paul's] predictions, you strive with humility and perseverance to be faithful to his recommendations: 'Preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season … be unfailing in patience and in teaching' (2 Tim 4:2)."

From an authentic interpretation of his speech, it would seem that the Holy Father strongly opposes these unorthodox members of the Church - believing that they should be discouraged rather than be given some special place or ministry. In that sense, then, not "everyone" has a place in the Church. By "everyone" the Pope meant every Catholic member. By Catholic, he means all those willing to accept and hold all the Church's teachings - even the ones that are difficult and challenging to live by. In the full context of the Holy Father's speech, then, "everyone" does not include the Church's enemies or those who preach a false gospel.

Contrary to popular belief, it is not so much active homosexuals and progressives who have been made to feel unwelcome by some in the Church's hierarchy, but rather traditional and orthodox Catholics. These are the ones whom the Holy Father wants to Church to embrace and provide with proper pastoral care once more - as opposed to those who "will not endure sound teaching" or who "turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths." Having said that, those who fall into the latter group are welcome to seek reconciliation, to change, to grow and begin living afresh a life wedded to truth and humility. By doing so, even they can discover again their rightful place within the Church.

It is traditional Catholics who have been ignored at best or unjustly treated at worst by some zealously misguided bishops over the past few decades. They have often been badly treated by some members of the hierarchy, whilst those who are engaged in lifestyles that contravene the gospel - like adulterers, fornicators and those engaged in same-sex behaviour - have seen some bishops in the Church bend over backwards to accommodate their wants. Those who purposefully choose to live lives contrary to the Church's norms have been granted an insincere welcome, then, at the expense of those who strenuously adhere to the truth "in season and out of season."

Of course, every human being is welcome to attend Mass and seek help from the Church, even her enemies and those who seem to live dissolute or morally objectionable lives. The Church's whole purpose is to save people from sin, so she always embraces those who are searching for salvation and truth - whoever they may be. Having said that, those who want to become members of the Church, and remain within her, need to be willing to convert and amend their lives so as to conform to the Gospel's call to holiness. Just like serial fornicators and adulterers who belong to the swingers' sub-culture, those who live the gay lifestyle or who engage in homosexual sex are called to change and to live chaste lives. In fact, every member of the Church is called to do the same.

So whilst everyone is welcome to attend Mass, those who are members of the Church are not welcome to create their own brand of Catholicism, in which the consequences of sin are negated for socio-political purposes. And, even though anyone can worship God in a Catholic church, not all are able to receive holy communion - dare I say, all are welcome at the Sacrifice, but only those in a state of grace are welcome at the table / altar rail.

With reference to the above, it is also worth noting that in the same address, Pope Benedict XVI emphasised that those divorced and remarried Catholics who had not first received an annulment were not normally able to receive holy communion. He also reaffirmed that irregular sexual unions, including non-heterosexual ones, were not to be promoted by the Church. I guess progressives would call the Holy Father's stance on these issues "unwelcoming" or "excluding"? Of course, the Pope does not mean that these people should be made to feel unwelcome at Mass or their local parishes - it's just that they need to be realistic about the Church's teaching. Yes, everyone is to be made to feel welcome, but let the welcoming be grounded in reality and let it be authentic. Come to Mass; but if you are not in a state of grace, don't come up to receive communion. There is a vast difference between genuine welcome and misguided accommodation.

Isn't it strange that the Soho Masses Pastoral Council didn't refer to the section dealing with irregular unions in the Holy Father speech on its website? Once we read what he actually said, the words seemingly used by the Soho Masses as some form of justification for pro-gay or progressive Catholic movements appear to ring hollow. This is why it is hugely important to contextualise the Pope's words. Some dissident Catholic movements, it would seem, then, are quite happy to misquote the Holy Father when it suits them - either to avoid dwelling on his message in its fullness or to deceive themselves and others. They can be compared to those liberal or fluffy Christians who often misrepresent or misinterpret the Gospel - over-emphasising Christ's gentleness (and gentle he is) but avoiding his many warnings about the consequences of personal sin, such as eternal Hell and perdition.

To help us truly understand the quote that appears on the Soho Masses website, here is that important section of the Holy Father's address to the French bishops that discussed divorcees and those in irregular sexual unions - as you will see for yourselves, the Pope's words do not chime with the inclusive-at-any-cost philosophy espoused by some militant progressives and homosexuals within the Church: -

For several decades, laws in different countries have been relativising its [the family's] nature as the primordial cell of society. Often they are seeking more to adapt to the mores and demands of particular individuals or groups, than to promote the common good of society. The stable union of a man and a woman, ordered to building earthly happiness through the birth of children given by God, is no longer, in the minds of certain people, the reference point for conjugal commitment. However, experience shows that the family is the foundation on which the whole of society rests. Moreover, Christians know that the family is also the living cell of the Church. The more the family is steeped in the spirit and values of the Gospel, the more the Church herself will be enriched by them and the better she will fulfil her vocation. I recognize and encourage warmly the efforts you are making to support the various associations active in assisting families. You have reason to uphold firmly, even at the cost of opposing prevailing trends, the principles which constitute the strength and the greatness of the sacrament of marriage. The Church wishes to remain utterly faithful to the mandate entrusted to her by her Founder, her Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. She does not cease to repeat with him: “What God has joined together, let not man put asunder!” (Mt 19:6). The Church did not give herself this mission: she received it. To be sure, none can deny that certain families experience trials, sometimes very painful ones. Families in difficulty must be supported, they must be helped to understand the greatness of marriage, and encouraged not to relativise God’s will and the laws of life which he has given us. A particularly painful situation, as you know, concerns those who are divorced and remarried. The Church, which cannot oppose the will of Christ, firmly maintains the principle of the indissolubility of marriage, while surrounding with the greatest affection those men and women who, for a variety of reasons, fail to respect it. Hence initiatives aimed at blessing irregular unions cannot be admitted.

Bizarrely, for all the "All are Welcome" groups and so-called ministries set up by certain progressives within the Church, it is known that their deficient accommodation (for that is what is really meant by their use of the word "welcome") would probably not apply to traditional or orthodox Catholics. For, if traditional Catholics are personae non gratae within the mainstream Church, we can guess that they would be most unwelcome at the liturgies and functions of its progressive and more openly Modernist movements!

Personally, I find it quite disheartening that the Soho Masses group seems to have twisted the original meaning of these words spoken by the Holy Father in his 2008 address to the Bishops of France. I am not surprised by this inversion, though. When certain progressives and others in the Church are more than happy to distort Scripture and two millennia of Christian tradition to suit their misguided teachings, is it any wonder that some are seemingly content to misrepresent the Pope's words, too?

[Image: A pro-gay church in Washington DC; source: The 202 blog. This image is also in the public domain on Google images. Text is mine.]

Te Deum laudamus! Pope Benedict XVI established the Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter (USA) earlier today

2012-01-01T18:45:00.003Z

The coat of arms of the Ordinariate of
the Chair of St Peter

Today saw the establishment in the USA of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter by Pope Benedict XVI. This is the world's second personal ordinariate for Anglicans wishing to enter into full communion with Rome and the Catholic Church, the first being the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham, which was created last year.

A few days ago, I wrote a post speculating that Fr Jeffrey Steenson would be appointed the US Ordinariate's first Ordinary - I am pleased to report that this prediction has now been realised.

I was glad also to read that the Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter will be under the protection of Our Lady of Walsingham. Who'd have thought that the ancient devotion to Mary as she appeared in 'England's Nazareth' would be more popular and widespread in the 21st century than it was before the Reformation!

Here is part of a press release issued by the newly created Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter, which details some of today's events : -

In response to numerous requests, Pope Benedict XVI has established an ordinariate for Anglican groups and clergy across the United States who wish to become Catholic. This is only the second structure like this in the world. The Pope also has named a Houston professor and former Episcopal bishop, Reverend Jeffrey N Steenson, to lead the ordinariate.

The Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter will be based in Houston, Texas. The only other ordinariate is Our Lady of Walsingham, established in January 2011 to serve England and Wales.

Similar to a diocese, though national in scope, the ordinariate will include parishes, groups and individuals of the Anglican heritage across the United States. Parishes will be fully Catholic, while retaining elements of their Anglican heritage, particularly in the liturgy.

Over 100 former Anglican priests already have applied to become Catholic priests for the ordinariate, and nearly 1,400 individuals from 22 communities are seeking to enter.

Father Steenson, who will be the Ordinary, became Catholic in 2007 and a Catholic priest in 2009. He is married and the father of three adult children.

For some background information on Fr Steenson, please read the press release in full or see my previous post or this biography on the new Ordinariate's website - which also includes details about the new structure's mission and its coat of arms amongst many other things.

Many congratulations both to Fr Jeffrey Steenson on his appointment as the first Ordinary of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter and to all those who will soon enter into full communion with the Pope through this new ecclesiastical structure. May the Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter bring many blessings and graces to the Catholic Church in the USA and to all Americans.

Our Lady of Walsingham, pray for us
St Peter, pray for us

[Image: The coat of arms of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter; source: The Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter]

Something from Papa Stronsay that'll help us all to smile :-)

2012-01-01T17:04:00.007Z

This video was produced by the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer (previously / also known as the Transalpine Redemptorists), the traditional religious community based on Papa Stronsay - a small, windswept Orkney Island. It was posted on their blog last week and must be amongst the best things I have ever encountered online!

The clip really cheered me up when watched it this morning. As one prone to depressive gloom, the song "Open up your Heart (and Let the Sunshine in)" written by Stuart Hamblen and performed by The Lancers combined with these images of Papa Stronsay was just what I needed today. The joyful video definitely beats a "light box" or whatever the medical profession now prescribe for the Winter blues or depression!

The Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer's website and blog offer great resources for the universal Church, and are imbued throughout with the splendour of the truth and the beauty of holiness. I highly recommend them both, and urge all my Catholic readers to show their support for these amazing men who live the evangelical counsels in a monastery on one of remotest of all the Orkney Islands.

Links: You might also like to visit the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer's Facebook page and YouTube channel.

To view a recently released New Year's Message by Fr Michael Mary FSsR, Superior of the Sons of the Most Holy Reedemer, please click here.

New look for the New Year - Hope you like it...

2012-01-01T06:59:00.002Z

Some of this blog's regular readers might have noticed a few changes to its design over the past couple of days. This is because I decided to simplify the layout by removing a few things. I thought that a change in the blog's background image might also prove to be refreshing. So I removed the fresco picture of "Christ and the Sinner" by Dmitry Plekhanov of Yaroslavl and replaced it with Rembrandt's drawing of "Christ and the Woman Taken in Adultery".

I hope, then, to have succeeded in keeping the blog's background theme intact whilst also lightening its mood a bit - Rembrandt's sketch allows for a more transparent look than was possible with the previous image. My main fear, though, is that the layout may now be too bright, and last night my sister told me that she didn't like the new look for this very reason. Hopefully, the blog's regular visitors will like the changes, though.

May we all experience Christ's love for us throughout 2012 - Happy New Year!

Cuba prepares for Pope Benedict XVI's visit - Prisoners are released and Our Lady of Charity has toured the island

2011-12-31T01:00:00.016Z

La Virgen de la Caridad del Cobre, patroness of Cuba

In preparation for Pope Benedict XVI's visit to Cuba in the Spring, the island's President Raul Castro has granted an amnesty to nearly 3,000 prisoners. This gesture has been criticised by some as an empty gimmick, though many Cubans are overjoyed by the fact that the Pope's visit has already heralded such unexpected clemency by the usually oppressive Communist regime.

Many of those currently being released by the Cuban government are first time offenders, women, the physically and mentally ill, and those over 60 years of age - seven political prisoners were also released in the past week. Raul Castro's decision to pardon so many prisoners seems to be his way of celebrating Pope Benedict XVI's expected visit. The act itself reminds us of the Successor of St Peter's uniquely powerful ability to proclaim the Gospel: "He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and release from darkness to prisoners" (cf Lk 4:18; Is 61:1).

The local Church in Cuba has also been preparing for the Papal visit, which is expected to take place sometime in March. Over the past 16 months the Caribbean island's patron saint, Our Lady of Charity of Cobre (La Virgen de la Caridad del Cobre), has visited over 300 schools, prisons, hospitals and universities during an 18,000 mile pilgrimage of prayer. She was even recently venerated on Revolution Square - a place normally reserved for Communist party events. It is also estimated that over 5 million Cubans (over half the nation's population) came out to pay their tributes to the Blessed Virgin during her special tour - which was a preparation both for the Papal visit and for Our Lady of Charity's 400th anniversary in 2012.

Yesterday saw the final act in the Blessed Virgin's pilgrimage amongst her people, with a special Mass celebrated in her honour in central Havana. Needless to say, such public acts of devotion in Communist Cuba would have been unimaginable only a few years ago. The fact, therefore, that Catholics (and other Christians) can now worship relatively freely on the Caribbean island is testament both to Bl Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI's hard work in campaigning for freedom and justice on behalf of the Cuban people. It also witnesses to the courage of Cuba's local bishops, priests and laypeople who kept the faith alight during the dark days of Fidel Castro's atheistic revolution.

As mentioned above, the Pope's visit to Cuba will coincide with the 400th anniversary of the miracle of Our Lady of Charity of Cobre, when her statue was mysteriously found by a slave boy and his masters in 1612. The story of this discovery and subsequent veneration of Our Lady under this title is both a fascinating and well documented one, whilst the devotion itself has had an immensely important role to play in Cuba's own cultural and political history. As means of an introduction, then, I have prepared a short version of the story of La Virgen de la Caridad del Cobre.

Our Lady of Charity of Cobre

Our Lady of Charity saves Los Tres Juanitos

One day in 1612, two indigenous Cuban brothers, called Juan and Rodrigo de Hoyos, sailed out to the Bay of Nipe with their young 10-year-old Black slave, Juan Moreno. (These companions are now known throughout Cuba as Los Tres Juanitos, or "the three Juans"). They had set off in the hope of finding salt in Bay's salt-mines, to use as preservative for meat at their local Barajagua slaughter-house. This was an important task, as meat was an essential element in the diets of those who worked and lived in and around the area, which was then called Santiago del Prado, but which is now known as El Cobre.

As the the two men and the boy approached the Bay of Nipe, there was such a violent storm that they thought their tiny boat would sink under the waves. The slave, Juan, had a great devotion to Our Lady and always wore a medal bearing her image as a sign of his filial love for her. In their anguish the three turned to the image on Juan's medal and began to ask for Mary's protection and help. Suddenly, the storm passed and the skies cleared - Our Lady seemed to have answered their prayers.

Soon after their deliverance, these three friends saw an object floating in the sea, which seemed to be coming towards them. At first, they thought it was a bird, but as they got closer it looked like a drowned woman. At last, they discovered that it was actually a statue of the Virgin Mary. She was carrying her Son on one arm and held a golden cross in her right hand. The statue was fastened to a board inscribed with the words: "Yo Soy la Virgen de la Caridad" ("I am the Virgin of Charity"). Bizarrely, the statue was also completely dry, even though it appeared to have been floating in the water for quite some time. The Virgin was also dressed in real clothes and had real hair! Her skin colour was that of a "mulata", or a woman of mixed race. Juan Moreno formally testified to the veracity of this story as an 85-year-old man in 1687, and his evidence can still be found in the General Archives of the Indies in Seville.

Needless to say, after finding this statue the three Juans forgot all about the salt they had gone out to find and returned home to Barajagua, where they told everyone about their amazing discovery. After investigating the statue, a local government official, Don Francisco Sánchez de Moya, ordered a small chapel to be built in honour of La Virgen de la Caridad. And within a short time, most of the local people had formed a great devotion to Our Lady under this new title.

Strange things, though, began to happen soon after the new chapel had been constructed. Our Lady of Charity would often disappear, only to be found again in various locations. One night, Rodrigo de Hoyos went to visit the statue, but was horrified to discover that La Virgen had disappeared. After locking the oratory, he went searching for her all night, but to no avail. When he came back to the chapel in the morning, though, he found the statue back on the altar where she should have been in the first place. After similar events, the people of Barajagua discerned that Our Lady of Charity wasn't happy with the area where her chapel had been built and wanted to be moved to El Cobre. So the chapel was moved. It was from then on that this image of the Blessed Virgin became known as Nuestra Señora de la Caridad del Cobre (Our Lady of Charity of El Cobre).

National Shrine of Our Lady of Charity

The township of El Cobre is based in the region called Oriente. It was in this area of the island that the first settlement in Cuba was made, called Baracoa. It was here also that Cuban slaves were first set free 1868. It is also the region where the island's first act of independence against Spanish rule took place. For these reasons, La Virgen de la Caridad del Cobre has become synonymous with Cuba, its culture and the people's sense of nationhood.

At the request of veterans of the Cuban War of Independence, Our Lady of Charity of Cobre was declared the patroness of Cuba by Pope Benedict XV in 1916. She was subsequently solemnly crowned during the 1936 Eucharistic Congress in Santiago de Cuba. In 1977, Pope Paul VI raised her sanctuary to the rank of a minor basilica - now called Basílica Santuario Nacional de Nuestra Señora de la Caridad del Cobre (National Shrine Basilica of Our Lady of Charity). God-willing, Pope Benedict XVI will visit this shrine in March, where he will lead the people of Cuba in their celebration of Our Lady of Charity's 400th anniversary.

Nuestra Señora de la Caridad del Cobre, ¡Ruega por Nosotros!

[Images: 1 Our Lady of Charity of Cobre; photo attributed to Francisco Javier Arbolí and published under a creative commons licence; source: Wikimedia Commons. 2 An image of Our Lady of Charity saving the three Juans; image in the public domain and found on Google images. 3 The Basilica of Our Lady of Charity of Cobre; photo attributed to Escula and published under a creative commons licence; source: Wikipedia Commons]

New appointments to the Pontifical Council for Social Communications show how important this dicastery is to Pope Benedict XVI and the New Evangelisation

2011-12-30T07:20:00.007Z

Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York

It was reported yesterday that Pope Benedict XVI has made several new appointments to the Pontifical Council for Social Communications. This dicastery's role is becoming more and more important as the Pope seeks to encourage all Christians to share their joy with others via means of modern social communications - which includes blogging and the new media. In encouraging a Christian presence within all forms of social communication, especially the new media, the Council offers invaluable support to another dicastery, the recently created Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelisation.

Four cardinals were appointed as members of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications yesterday. They include Cardinal Josip Bozanic, Archbishop of Zagreb; Cardinal Oswald Gracias, Archbishop of Bombay; Cardinal John Njue, Archbishop of Nairobi; and Cardinal Laurent Monsengwo Pasinya, Archbishop of Kinshasa. Cardinal Njue is known in his native Kenya as a great defender of human life, who has often spoken against abortion and has also pointed to the fact that condoms are not an effective method of preventing the transmission of HIV. Cardinal Monsengwo Pasinya is a member of one of the royal families of Basakata and was fundamental in drafting a new constitution for the Democratic Republic of Congo in the 1990s. He is highly respected in Africa as a champion of human rights, a promoter of peace and as a courageous defender of the truth as an absolute and objective reality. Recently, he contested the results of this month's DRC Presidential elections, claiming they were "neither real nor just". Cardinal Pasinya is considered papabile - a possible successor to Pope Benedict XVI. Sadly, though, it doesn't seem as if his Archdiocese has much of an online presence.

Amongst the bishops who were appointed to the Pontifical Council for Social Communications yesterday is the Archbishop of New York, Timothy Dolan. The others who will be joining him are Archbishop Mark Benedict Coleridge of Canberra and Goulburn; Archbishop Salvatore Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelisation; Bishop Manuel Jose Macario do Nascimento Clemente of Porto; Bishop Joseph Befe Ateba of Kribi; and Bishop Barthelemy Adoukonou, Secretary of the Pontifical Council for Culture. Archbishop Dolan is well known for his outspoken defence of marriage and for opposing abortion - he even received a standing ovation during his Installation Mass for reaffirming the Church's mission "to embrace and protect the dignity of every human person, the sanctity of human life, from the tiny baby in the womb to the last moment of natural passing into eternal life." He also has his own blog, The Gospel in the Digital Age - a sign that he is well aware of the need to for Christians to be present online.

Several men and women were also appointed as consultors of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications. Amongst those listed are Fr Antonino Spadaro SJ, Director of "Civilta Cattolica"; Fr Eric Salobir OP, General Assistant for Social Communications within the Dominican Order in France; Fr Augustine Savarimuthu SJ, Director of the Interdisciplinary Centre for Social Communications of the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome; Sr Dominica Dipio OP, Associate Professor of Literature at the Makerere University in Kampala, Uganda; Antonio Preziosi, Director of "Giornale Radio Rai" and "Rai Radio Uno"; Marco Tarquinio, Director of the newspaper "Avvenire"; Mr Paul Wuthe, Secretary of the Media Commission of the Austrian Bishops' Conference; Mr Greg Erlandson, President of the Catholic Press Association in the USA; and Mr Gian Maria Vian, Director of "L'Osservatore Romano".

With such illustrious appointments, it seems that the Holy Father is keen to support the work of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications. In this world of mass communications and social networking, the Church must adapt rapidly to new ways of proclaiming the Gospel. In that sense, the new members of this Pontifical Council have an important contribution to make to the life and mission of the the universal Church. We who use the new media and who have the privilege of being called Christian (even if we don't always honour that name) also have a need to seek guidance from the Holy Father and his Council for Social Communications, so that we can truly discern the Christ-like way "of being present in the digital world..., which is honest and open, responsible and respectful of others" (Pope Benedict XVI, Message for the 45th World Communciations' Day).

[Image: Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York; this image is attributed to CyWhite from Milwaukee and is published under a creative commons licence; source: Wikimedia Commons]

St Thomas Becket - "I am prepared to die for my Lord, so that in my blood the Church will attain liberty and peace"

2011-12-29T20:15:00.014Z

A reliquary (left) containing relics of St
Thomas Becket, Westminster Cathedral

This post is a bit 'late in the day' - although it is still (just about) the Feast of St Thomas Becket, the martyred Archbishop of Canterbury.

Today, I visited Westminster Cathedral to venerate some of St Thomas of Canterbury's relics, which are housed in a chapel dedicated to him there - also known as the Vaughan Chantry. Afterwards, I popped over to the Brompton Oratory, where, much to my delight, an old rite Mass was just about to be celebrated at St Joseph's Altar. Both being able to venerate the relics of St Thomas and attend an Extraordinary Form Mass on his Feast Day proved to be a cause of great joy for me.

In thanksgiving, then, I thought I would share a couple of photos of the Chapel of St Thomas of Canterbury at Westminster Cathedral, which were taken this afternoon. Also contained in this post is an account of St Thomas' martyrdom, which was written by one of the few innocent eyewitnesses at the horrific event - a man called Edward Grim. This witness was a clerk from Cambridge who happened to be at Canterbury for Vespers on 29 December 1170, the evening when King Henry II's knights murdered the holy man of God. Grim actually tried to defend St Thomas from the moral blows, but ended up being severely wounded himself. His record makes for interesting reading. Those who wish to read the full version of what I have reproduced below can do so at Fordham University's Internet Medieval Source Book site.

Edward Grim's account of the murder of Thomas Becket

After the monks took [Thomas] through the doors of the church, the four aforementioned knights followed behind with a rapid pace. A certain subdeacon, Hugh the Evil-clerk, named for his wicked offence and armed with their malice, went with them - showing no reverence for either God or the saints because by following them he condoned their deed. When the holy Archbishop entered the cathedral the monks who were glorifying God abandoned Vespers - which they had begun to celebrate for God - and ran to their father whom they had heard was dead but they saw alive and unharmed. They hastened to close the doors of the church in order to bar the enemies from slaughtering the bishop, but the wondrous athlete turned toward them and ordered that the doors be opened. "It is not proper," he said, "that a house of prayer, a church of Christ, be made a fortress since although it is not shut up, it serves as a fortification for his people; we will triumph over the enemy through suffering rather than by fighting - and we come to suffer, not to resist." Without delay the sacrilegious men entered the house of peace and reconciliation with swords drawn; indeed the sight alone as well as the rattle of arms inflicted not a small amount of horror on those who watched. And those knights who approached the confused and disordered people who had been observing Vespers but, by now, had run toward the lethal spectacle exclaimed in a rage: "Where is Thomas Becket, traitor of the King and kingdom?" No one responded and instantly they cried out more loudly, "Where is the Archbishop?" Unshaken he replied to this voice as it is written, "The righteous will be like a bold lion and free from fear," he descended from the steps to which he had been taken by the monks who were fearful of the knights and said in an adequately audible voice, "Here I am, not a traitor of the King but a priest; why do you seek me?" And [Thomas], who had previously told them that he had no fear of them added, "Here I am ready to suffer in the name of He who redeemed me with His blood; God forbid that I should flee on account of your swords or that I should depart from righteousness." With these words - at the foot of a pillar - he turned to the right. On one side was the Altar of the Blessed Mother of God, on the other the Altar of the Holy Confessor Benedict - through whose example and prayers he had been crucified to the world and his lusts; he endured whatever the murderers did to him with such constancy of the soul that he seemed as if he were not of flesh. The murderers pursued him and asked, "Absolve and restore to communion those you have excommunicated and return to office those who have been suspended." To these words [Thomas] replied, "No penance has been made, so I will not absolve them." "Then you," they said, "will now die and will suffer what you have earned." "And I," he said, "am prepared to die for my Lord, so that in my blood the Church will attain liberty and peace; but in the name of Almighty God I forbid that you hurt my men, either cleric or layman, in any way." The glorious martyr acted conscientiously with foresight for his men and prudently on his own behalf, so that no one near him would be hurt as he hastened toward Christ. It was fitting that the soldier of the Lord and the martyr of the Saviour adhered to His words when he was sought by the impious, "If it is me you seek, let them leave."

The Martyrdom of St Thomas, as found in the Chapel
of St Thomas of Canterbury, Westminster Cathedral

With rapid motion they laid sacrilegious hands on him, handling and dragging him roughly outside of the walls of the church so that there they would slay him or carry him from there as a prisoner, as they later confessed. But when it was not possible to easily move him from the column, he bravely pushed one [of the knights] who was pursuing and drawing near to him; he called him a panderer saying, "Don't touch me, Rainaldus, you who owes me faith and obedience, you who foolishly follow your accomplices." On account of the rebuff the knight was suddenly set on fire with a terrible rage and, wielding a sword against the sacred crown said, "I don't owe faith or obedience to you that is in opposition to the fealty I owe my lord King." The invincible martyr - seeing that the hour which would bring the end to his miserable mortal life was at hand and already promised by God to be the next to receive the crown of immortality - with his neck bent as if he were in prayer and with his joined hands elevated above - commended himself and the cause of the Church to God, St Mary, and the blessed martyr St Denis.

He had barely finished speaking when the impious knight, fearing that [Thomas] would be saved by the people and escape alive, suddenly set upon him and, shaving off the summit of his crown which the sacred chrism consecrated to God, he wounded the sacrificial lamb of God in the head; the lower arm of the writer was cut by the same blow. Indeed [the writer] stood firmly with the holy Archbishop, holding him in his arms - while all the clerics and monks fled - until the one he had raised in opposition to the blow was severed. Behold the simplicity of the dove, behold the wisdom of the serpent in this martyr who presented his body to the killers so that he might keep his head, in other words his soul and the church, safe; nor would he devise a trick or a snare against the slayers of the flesh so that he might preserve himself because it was better that he be free from this nature! O worthy shepherd who so boldly set himself against the attacks of wolves so that the sheep might not be torn to pieces! and because he abandoned the world, the world - wanting to overpower him - unknowingly elevated him. Then, with another blow received on the head, he remained firm. But with the third the stricken martyr bent his knees and elbows, offering himself as a living sacrifice, saying in a low voice, "For the name of Jesus and the protection of the church I am ready to embrace death." But the third knight inflicted a grave wound on the fallen one; with this blow he shattered the sword on the stone and his crown, which was large, separated from his head so that the blood turned white from the brain yet no less did the brain turn red from the blood; it purpled the appearance of the church with the colours of the lily and the rose, the colours of the Virgin and Mother and the life and death of the confessor and martyr. The fourth knight drove away those who were gathering so that the others could finish the murder more freely and boldly. The fifth - not a knight but a cleric who entered with the knights - so that a fifth blow might not be spared him who had imitated Christ in other things, placed his foot on the neck of the holy priest and precious martyr and (it is horrible to say) scattered the brains with the blood across the floor, exclaiming to the rest, "We can leave this place, knights, he will not get up again."

From Vita S. Thomae, Cantuariensis Archepiscopi et Martyris, ed. in James Robertson, Materials for the Life of Thomas Becket, (London: Rolls Series, 1875-1885) (7 vols.) Vol. II.

Modern translation by Dawn Marie Hayes, with some changes from American to British English made by me. This shortened text is reproduced under the conditions stated on the Fordham Medieval Source Book website, where the unedited version may be found.

Feast of the Holy Innocents - How the Church could benefit from a reintroduction of the Boy Bishop traditions

2011-12-28T00:05:00.019Z

Westminster Cathedral's 2007 Boy Bishop
(source: Solomon, I have surpassed thee)

Today is the Feast of the Holy Innocents, when the whole Church commemorates those children who were killed by King Herod for the sake of the gospel. It is also one of the days that used to be connected to the Boy Bishop tradition - the others being St Nicholas' Day and certain local saints' days. The custom itself, which saw a boy (usually a cathedral chorister) replacing the local bishop for a day or a few weeks, was very popular in the Middle Ages. Sadly, it was suppressed in England during the Protestant Reformation, though continued in some parts of Europe well into the 20th century. In recent years, though, there have been a few attempts to revive this joyful and playful tradition throughout the universal Church.

Although each cathedral community had its own dates, liturgies and customs surrounding the election and installation of its Boy Bishop, most places shared certain things in common. Almost everywhere a chorister or schoolboy connected to a particular cathedral was either nominated by his masters or eleceted by his peers to become that year's temporary replacement to the local ordinary - during which he wore the mitre, pectoral cross, ring and also carried the crozier. Sometimes, a writing or translating competition was used to choose which boy was worthy enough to become that year's mock bishop.

Also common amongst the Boy Bishop traditions was the beautiful ceremony that saw the actual bishop giving up his throne and the boy's subsequent enthronement. During Vespers on the day upon which the Boy Bishop was installed - usually St Nicholas' Day (in England) or the Feast of the Holy Innocents (in most other places) - the local ordinary would step down from his seat during the Magnificat, at the words "deposuit potentes de sede" ("He casts down the mighty from their thrones"), whilst the child who had been elected would then immediately replace him during the singing of the "et exaltavit humiles" ("and He raises the lowly").

This beautiful semi-official liturgy acted as a sort of memento mori for the bishop and was also a means of encouraging children to strive towards their best potential - for nothing is impossible for God, and any boy could potentially become a bishop. The Boy Bishop tradition reminded prelates that God would permanently remove them from their thrones one day and that there were countless other generations waiting to serve Him. The custom, then, was not just a childish bit of fun for Christmas, but was also a powerful reminder to individualistic or power-hungry ecclesiastics that their offices and honours were not theirs to keep. Not only would they have to answer to future generations for the way they had led their dioceses, but they would also have to answer directly to the One who exalted them in the first place. The Boy Bishop customs also helped prelates to reflect on the fact that no-one in the Church is indispensable - not even a bishop. As Our Lord said: "Out of these stones, God can raise children for Abraham" (Mt 3:9).

Soon after his investiture, the Boy Bishop would be dressed in a mitre and cope and choose a curia or chapter for himself from amongst his friends and classmates. He would afterwards lead most of his particular cathedral's services either for the whole of Advent (if he was elected on the Feast of St Nicholas) or Christmastide (if he was appointed on the Feast of the Holy Innocents). In York, the Boy Bishop was invested with great solemnity and even went on a visitation of his diocese, whilst the one at Gloucester Cathedral was often lavished with gifts of money by members of the local aristocracy! In some places, the boy would only exercise his "office" for a day or two or just during Vespers on his particular cathedral's own saint's day - during which very popular sermons were preached (often better than the ones given by the real bishop!). Of course, a Boy Bishop could not celebrate the sacraments, so Masses and confessions continued to be celebrated and heard by priests belonging to the (real and adult) cathedral chapter.

Protestants viewed such joyful traditions with deep suspicion - especially puritans, who were not really known for their sense of humour! Also, both Henry VIII and Elizabeth I were deeply suspicious of these subversive customs, even if the Church had had no problem with them for centuries. As the Boy Bishop tradition sees an ecclesiastical potentate replaced by a spotty teenager or child, many early Anglicans thought that if it continued this custom could destabilise (through mockery) their new or "reformed" episcopacy. So, although Mary Tudor revived the Boy Bishop custom in the mid-16th century, it all but disappeared by during the reign of her Protestant half-sister, Elizabeth I.

Westminster Cathedral's 2007 Boy Bishop with two members
of his chapter and Fr Tim Dean - then Chaplain to the
Choir School. (source: Solomon, I have surpassed thee)

In recent years, the Boy Bishop tradition has made a bit of a comeback. Several English cathedrals, such as Salisbury and Hereford, now keep this custom once more. Even Westminster Cathedral attempted to revive the Boy Bishop tradition a few years ago - though as far as I am aware this annual event has now stopped (publicly, at least). The photos in this post show ceremonies surrounding the installation of Westminster Cathedral's 2007 Boy Bishop. That year's Boy Bishop was elected after winning a writing competition at the Cathedral's Choir School. He then delivered a homily on St Gregory's Day - the Choir School's feast day. A blog post written in 2007 by Mgr Mark Langham, who was Administrator of Westminster Cathedral at the time, contains more images, as well as the prayers and rites that were used during the installation of that year's Boy Bishop.

There is something to be said for the Boy Bishop tradition. It reminds us all that being light-hearted can be immensely beneficial, especially as religion is prone to be taken far too seriously. It is also a wonderful way of reminding bishops that God will, one day, cast them from their thrones. Those bishops who spent the past few decades implementing their own version of Catholicism could therefore have done with a Boy Bishop - they might have realised then in a profound way that bishops are custodians of truth, which must be passed on from generation to generation, as opposed to being religious innovators. Those who think they have modernised their dioceses forever would know, if they had been replaced by a Boy Bishop, that the Church is bigger than they are, that God will probably undo all their work with the next generation, and that out of the mouths of babes shall pour forth wisdom (cf Mt 21:16).

Update: Fr Bede Rowe has left a comment, reminding us that Chavagnes International College (an acclaimed English language Catholic school based in France) maintains the Boy Bishop tradition. To read more about it, and to view photos of the 2011 Boy Bishop and the ceremonies surrounding his installation, please click here, here, here, here and here. Fr Bede Rowe has also found an old photo of a Boy Bishop here, who looks more like a Boy Pope!

[Images: Westminster Cathedral's 2007 Boy Bishop; source: Solomon, I have surpassed thee]

When is a vicar not a vicar? The Guardian's coverage of the "midnight mass brawl" at a Southampton Catholic church

2011-12-27T11:00:00.009Z

St Edmund's RC church, Southampton
photo attributed to David Mainwood (see below)

Many UK media agencies reported yesterday that worshippers were left distressed at St Edmund's in Southampton this Christmas as violence broke out amongst some of those who had found their way into the church during Midnight Mass.

According to the Daily Mail two men and a woman (the BBC mentions three men) who were not regular worshippers at St Edmund's came in to the building half-way through Mass and ended up throwing chairs at each other and then at members of the congregation. It seems that these characters may have entered the the church on their way from a drunken night on the town. From various reports it also appears that due to the nature of this unfortunate fracas the celebrant, Mgr Vincent Harvey, felt obliged to stop the Mass for several minutes in order to secure the safety of his flock.

This post is not so much concerned with the horrific details surrounding the unholy disruption of the Mass, but rather with a minor - but very telling - detail in the Guardian newspaper's reporting of it. Those who would therefore like to read more about the incident itself can do so here and here.

This is how Riazat Butt, the Guardian's religion correspondent, began her piece on the Midnight Mass fight at St Edmund's: -

"A vicar has said he feared for his parishioners' lives after a brawl broke out at the midnight mass he was leading on Christmas Eve." [Update 15:00 - the Guardian recently corrected this sentence, replacing "vicar" with "priest", stating "...This article was amended on 27 December 2011 to correct our erroneous description of Father Vincent as a vicar, to a priest" - which kind of means that the rest of this post is now redundant. Oh, well...]

Those of us based here in the UK will know that referring to a man as "a vicar" (in this context) almost always implies that he is a Church of England (Anglican) clergyman. From reading Riazat Butt's report, then, it would appear that the Guardian's religion correspondent is confused. Whilst obviously referring to a Catholic priest, Mgr Vincent Harvey, she has described him using what most would consider an Anglican form of address. Of course, Riazat Butt might be unaware of the various different meanings attached to the title "vicar" within both the modern Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church. Even so, it says a lot about the left-leaning Guardian if its own expert in religious affairs doesn't seem to know that "vicar" when referring to a parish priest almost exclusively relates to Anglicanism.

Although the title "vicar" for a certain parochial clergymen originated in the pre-Reformation English Catholic Church, it is now commonly used in the UK as a generic term for all Anglican clerics - though some people, especially those with little knowledge of religious matters, also use the word to describe any Christian minister. The title "vicar" for parish priests here in England is a very ancient one, which dates back to the Middle Ages when some clergymen were appointed by secular or monastic landowners - acting vicariously for them as tithe-collectors. The title in relation to parochial clergymen used to have a significant meaning for hundreds of years, helping to differentiate - mainly for financial purposes - vicars from their more distinguished colleagues, known as rectors.

There might be some kind of reasoning behind Riazat Butt's eccentric description of Mgr Vincent Harvey as "a vicar", though, as he is in fact the Vicar General for the Diocese of Portsmouth. Of course, there is an enormous difference between what many understand a vicar (here in the UK) to be and the role and function of a diocesan vicar general - both offices are not only distinct but usually belong to two different Christian traditions. Although the Catholic Church in England and Wales no longer uses the ancient titles "vicar" and "rector" for its parochial clergy, they are still used when referring to specific offices within diocesan or ecclesiastical hierarchies. Vicars general, episcopal vicars and judicial vicars are men who help bishops run their dioceses, whilst vicars forane lead territorial divisions (deaneries) within a diocese. None of the men holding these offices are normally referred to as "a vicar" - especially when doing so would lead most people to assume they had joined the Anglican priesthood! Sadly, it appears that the religion correspondent at one of Britain's leading newspapers doesn't know this.

I also deliberately avoided dwelling on the fact that Riazat Butt chose not to use capital letters for "Midnight Mass". After all, such mistakes are to be expected in the left-leaning paper. The Guardian is so well-known for publishing misprints and typos that many (inspired by the satirical magazine, Private Eye) now jokingly refer to it as the Grauniad! But for a journalist who is supposed to be an expert in religious affairs to begin an article about a Catholic parish priest in modern-day Britain by calling him "a vicar" seemed so odd that I thought it worthy of comment.

Although the fact that three yobs were physically violent during Mass is depressing enough, the fact that a journalist specialising in religious affairs on a national newspaper doesn't seem to know the difference between the titles given to Anglican and Catholic clergy seems even more disheartening. Allowing someone who appears as clueless at Butt to report on religious matters may indicate that society as a whole has become religiously illiterate (as far as Christianity is concerned at least). It is also possibly a sign that secular news agencies are failing to realise the growing need for accurate religious reporting - religion is becoming more important, not less so. Having said that, most if not all the other papers that covered this story managed to get their facts right - no other journalist, as far as I know, referred to Mgr Vincent Harvey as "a vicar". It seems, then, that the Grauniad was merely abiding by its reputation!

[Image: St Edmund's Church (David Mainwood) / CC BY-SA 2.0]

A sonnet for Christmas, written from Our Lady's perspective

2011-12-24T17:01:00.032Z

I really should stop writing poems, as I know that I am most definitely not a poet. Having said that, I decided to write this sonnet last night, probably as a substitute for a proper Christmas blog post. And having just attended Solemn First Vespers of Christmas at Westminster Cathedral, I guess now is an appropriate time to publish it...

However poor this silly little sonnet may be, it is my way of offering a small gift to Our Lord on his birthday as well as saying 'thank you' to the Blessed Virgin Mary for her commitment both to God and humanity. One day, my hope is that I will be able to be as sincere as she was when she declared: I am the handmaid of the Lord, be it done unto me according to thy Word.

I know this ode is not very good, and apologise in advance for any offence caused - literary or otherwise.

I recently took this image during a visit to
the Victoria and Albert Museum

She who bore God

He moves. In me he lives – the one called love.
He is mine and I am his - my bright son.
Rising through me, he came down from above -
Behold the marvel that our Lord has done!

A shadow overcame our earthly fault,
It filled my longing with a warm embrace.
Then silence as Heaven found its new vault –
A garden where God formed a human face.

Salvation nurtured as the months passed by,
And time was changed within my fragile frame.
The Word no more beyond the hiding sky,
Creation no longer could be the same.

From my womb sprang forth life upon that morn –
He who had loved me before I was born.

Wishing all my readers a blessed, grace-filled and joyful Christmas. May Our Lord Jesus Christ be born anew in us today!

Do you enjoy a flutter? If so, it might be worth backing the former Episcopal Bishop of Rio Grande, Jeffrey Steenson, to become the first Ordinary of the US Anglican Ordinariate

2011-12-23T00:45:00.011Z

Jeffrey Steenson as the Episcopal
Bishop of Rio Grande

It was announced by Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington a few weeks ago that the American Anglican Ordinariate will be erected on 1 January 2012. Already, it seems that nearly 70 Episcopalian priests are planning on joining the US Ordinariate, whilst a few former bishops have also been tipped to join. Several Anglo-Catholic and Anglican Use parishes will also be expected to seek formal membership of the new Ordinariate once it has been created in just over a week's time. It appears, too, that a few Traditional Anglican Communion (Anglican Church in America) congregations are keen to join the new structure - which will allow all these Anglican groups to retain their patrimony whilst also entering into full communion with Rome.

Last night, Virtue Online (The Voice of Global Orthodox Anglicanism) confidently reported that the former Episcopal Bishop of Rio Grande, Jeffrey Steenson, is expected to be appointed the US Ordinariate's new Ordinary. Steenson is already a Catholic priest, having left the Episcopal Church four years ago - following an Anglican ministry that lasted over 24 years. He entered into full communion with the Catholic Church in December 2007 during a private ceremony celebrated by Cardinal Bernard Law in Rome's Santa Maria Maggiore basilica. The former Episcopal bishop was subsequently ordained into the Catholic diaconate 12 months later, whilst Archbishop Michael Sheehan of Santa Fe ordained him into the sacred priesthood in 2009. The Catholic Archdiocese of Santa Fe covers roughly the same area as the Episcopal Diocese of the Rio Grande.

Since his ordination as a Catholic priest, Fr Steenson has been actively engaged in preparing for the erection of the US Anglican Ordinariate. He has been seen at several Anglican Use events and conferences, whilst he has also been helping Cardinal Wuerl to implement Anglicanorum Coetibus in the United States - a task that the Archbishop of Washington was asked to carry out by Pope Benedict XVI. In fact, Fr Jeffrey Steenson was actively present when Cardinal Wuerl announced the date chosen for the creation of the US Ordinariate.

It seems that a few recent leaks from inside the Vatican have confirmed that Steenson will most likely be appointed as the first Ordinary for the new US Anglican Ordinariate on 1 January 2012. Mary Anne Muller writing for Virtue Online states that she came into possession of a private communiqué late on Wednesday, which revealed that Steenson is being tipped for the Ordinariate's top post. It also seems that a second confidential source confirmed the contents of this communiqué, telling Mary Muller that: "Yes, Jeffrey Steenson will be the new Ordinary." Rumours have also been circulating on one or two blogs, all of which point to Jeffrey Steenson as the one most likely to be appointed the US Anglican Ordinariate's first Ordinary. Needless to say, Fr Steenson himself has not commented on these rumours - the ability to be discreet is a must for any prelate in the Church!

Fr Jeffrey Steenson was educated at Harvard Divinity School and also holds a doctorate from Oxford University. He currently resides in Houston, Texas, where he teaches at St Thomas University and St Mary's Seminary. In this capacity, it seems that Steenson has been instrumental in creating a tailored formation course for those Episcopal priests and bishops who will soon be seeking ordination as Catholic priests within the US Ordinariate. Considering his abilities as a Catholic priest as well as his vast experience as an Episcopal clergyman, it really does seem that Fr Jeffrey Steenson is more than suited to become the US Ordinariate's first leader. As a married man, though, Steenson - like Mgr Keith Newton of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham - will never be ordained to the episcopacy, even if he will have jurisdiction over the new canonical structure (if appointed Ordinary, of course). Although not a bishop, Jeffrey Steenson - if he does become the Ordinariate's Ordinary - will be allowed to wear the mitre, pectoral cross and ring.

I remember being at Westminster Cathedral on 1 January this year to witness three former Anglican bishops - including Keith Newton - being received into full communion with the Catholic Church. I was also at their ordination to the priesthood two weeks later. Both events, as well as the subsequent receptions of ordinary former Anglicans into full communion with Rome through membership of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham, were extremely joyful and exciting for many within the Catholic Church in England and Wales. Sadly, though, since then it seems that things have slowed down considerably for the English Ordinariate. Of course, this was to be expected - especially after the initial rush. No excitement can or should last forever. Life's essential nitty-gritty work is often slow and boring.

Needless to say, then, the Catholic Church in America will probably find the next few weeks in its history to be very exciting ones indeed. One way of keeping the momentum going might be for the US Ordinariate to find itself a mother church as soon as possible. Not having a main Ordinariate church here in the UK seems to have added to the natural dampening of its exhilarating beginnings, and might even have caused second-wavers to think again about swimming the Tiber. Hopefully, if the US Ordinariate manages to find a church for its Ordinary without much fuss, the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham might then be given a boost in its own efforts to secure a mother church this side of the pond.

[Image: Jeffrey Steenson as the Episcopal Bishop of Rio Grande; source: The Black Cordelias]

A traditional Catholic reacts to a blasphemous poster of Our Lady by destroying it - But was this the right thing to do?

2011-12-22T01:00:00.030Z

This image shows the offending poster after Arthur Skinner
had destroyed it - removing the more shocking elements

A few days ago a man referring to himself as a traditional Catholic decided to vandalise a controversial image of the Blessed Virgin Mary. According to the New Zealand Herald, Arthur Skinner from the Catholic Action Group in New Zealand damaged the poster as he deemed it to be so offensive that he felt a responsibility to remove it.

The image showing the Virgin Mary holding a pregnancy testing kit with a shocked expression on her face had been commissioned by an Auckland Anglican church, St Matthew-in-the-City. This parish is already known for displaying controversial (some would say blasphemous) quasi-religious images - a few years ago its billboard depicted an extremely distasteful image of St Joseph and Our Lady in bed after sex (click here and scroll down to view - but be warned).

Whilst reacting to this story, many anti-Catholic commentators in New Zealand have not only criticised Skinner, but have also used this opportunity to take a dig at the Catholic Church as a whole. According to Richard Boock, who appears to be an embittered lapsed Catholic, Arthur Skinner's act of vandalism is further proof of Catholicism's "bullying" and "intolerant" attitude. Those who bother to read Boock's article will find his self-righteousness particularly bizarre, especially seeing that he begins his piece - with no apparent sense of irony - by referring to Catholics as "Micks" (an offensive and derogatory term for the Irish).

The vandalising of this poster was also linked by Boock to the much exaggerated clerical abuse scandals. How both things are connected is beyond me. It might be something to do, though, with the fact that the Auckland Anglican church which displayed the offensive poster of Our Lady seems to be very pro-homosexual, whilst - according to a much touted "liberal" myth - the Catholic Church hates homosexuals and also encourages paedophilia. It seems, then, that the world and its allies get on fine with progressive churches, especially when they all combine forces to attack Catholicism. But didn't Jesus himself promise that those who proclaim the truth will always be attacked and mocked by the world and that the Church would be pestered by false prophets?

Of course, many would agree that Skinner's actions were extreme, if not illegal - a fact that he himself seems to revel in. But what has one man's attempted (and possibly misguided) defence of Our Lady's honour got to do with mythical Inquisitorial bogeymen or hysterical scaremongering about so-called paedophile priests? It seems that whenever an opportunity arises for a spot of Catholic bashing, liberals and those with an axe to grind against the Church come scurrying out of the woodwork. It is also guaranteed that if a relatively controversial story involving a Catholic appears in the news, there will be an army of commentators out there waiting to link it to clerical child abuse.

Sadly, it seems that the one thing these commentators hate the most about Catholicism is that it will not bow to their secular or materialistic gods, or to modern sexual mores. Because the Church condemns sex outside marriage (including homosexual sex), her "progressive" enemies will stop at nothing to try and discredit her - hence their hysterical over-exaggerations about priestly child abuse. Also, because Catholics like Arthur Skinner are genuinely hurt and angry at seeing the Virgin Mary mocked, the Church as a whole finds herself condemned as "intolerant" - yet no mention is made of the intolerance shown towards Catholics and our feelings. One wonders why these same concerned "liberal" commentators don't argue that the protestant church which displayed the offensive image of Our Lady was actually being insensitive, if not intolerant, towards those Christians who love Mary - our mother, given to us from the Cross by Christ himself?

I have no idea who Arthur Skinner is, and haven't heard of the movement he belongs to. As far as I know, he might be representing himself or only a handful of others. I do admire his obvious love for the Virgin Mary, though. It is right and just that Christians should be angry when our heavenly mother is ridiculed and mocked - just as Christ was moved to anger by those who were defiling the Temple or just as we would be hurt and enraged to see our own physical mothers being humiliated. The fact that those committing blasphemy against Our Lady actually call themselves Christians is even more likely to cause offence and hurt. One might understand why a Satanist or some extremist atheist would revel in producing blasphemous images of the saints, but for Christians to do it is inexcusable. It is both a scandal and an open attack on those who sincerely follow the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Having said that, I think it was unfortunate that Skinner chose to act on his anger by resorting to a form of criminal damage in order to get his point across. Although his anger was and is legitimate, his actions might not have been. In vandalising the poster, Arthur Skinner appears either to have been trying to court media attention for his group or to have fallen into a deliberate trap - designed to make Catholics look like the ogres or intolerant fools that the world believes us to be. The evil one loves it when we react to his goading - which is why St Paul warns: "Even if you are angry, you must not sin; never let the sun set on your anger, or else you will give the devil a foothold" (Eph 4:26-27).

A bit of wisdom and prayer might have helped Arthur Skinner realise that whilst righteous anger might not be a bad thing, turning the other cheek is always a good reaction for a Christian to adopt. There is much to be said for rising above calculated attempts to hurt and mock. Rather than vandalising someone else's property - even if the poster was really offensive to Mary (and all true Christians) - it might have been better for Arthur Skinner and his group to make acts of reparation instead? I am sure that many of them already have been doing this. In reflecting on this, I am reminded of some words from that well-known Marian hymn, I'll Sing a Hymn to Mary: "When wicked men blaspheme thee, I'll love and bless thy name". It's worth noting that this beautiful song does not say: "When wicked men blaspheme thee... I'll commit random acts of vandalism / take the law into my own hands"!

St Matthew-in-the-City church has succeeded both in creating controversy and mocking the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of Christ and mother of all Christians. In so doing, I would question this church's real commitment to Jesus - who will not look kindly on those who unrepentantly deride his beloved mother. For that reason, and knowing that this isn't the first time that St Matthew's has attempted to steal the Christmas lime-light by displaying inappropriate images of the Holy Family, I can fully understand why Arthur Skinner felt so angry when he encountered this poster of Our Lady. Whether or not he should have vandalised it is another matter.

Personally, I believe that God will deal with unrepentant blasphemers in His own way. I also truly believe that Mary prays for the salvation of all those wicked men and women who mock her. We should join her in this act of mercy, offering the Rosary in reparation for those poor sinners who do not know what they are doing, or who are committing evil when they genuinely believe that their actions are for the good. We only have one life in which to repent, and no-one knows when his or her time on earth will come to an end. With that in mind, let us then offer our spiritual sacrifices this Christmas for those in most need of the grace of true conversion.

Those wishing to read the more about this story can do so on the Telegraph's website. After some thought, I decided not display the offending poster in its original state - it does appear in the above link, though.

[Image: The damaged poster of depicting the Blessed Virgin Mary outside St Matthew-in-the-City church, Auckland; source: The Dunedin School]

Is it now time to boycott Tesco? One of its senior executives brands Christians who are opposed to gay marriage as "evil"

2011-12-20T00:50:00.015Z

"If people do not welcome you... shake the dust off your feet
as a witness against them" (Lk 9:5)

A few weeks ago I resisted the temptation to call for a boycotting of Tesco, one of the UK's leading grocery stores. At the time, the company had decided to reduce its charitable funding for Cancer Research UK in order to support London's annual gay pride parade. Although many Christians suggested that shopping at a gay-agenda supporting shop was incompatible with the gospel, I was guided by one of St Paul's admonitions to the Corinthians. He told the early Christians in that lascivious city that we must all sometimes associate with the sexually immoral (and their supporters) who are outside the bounds of grace, otherwise we "would have to leave this world" (1 Cor 5:10).

In the past few days, though, it has come to light that Nick Lansley, Head of Research and Development at Tesco, has gone one step further and declared himself against "evil" Christians - those who resist proposals to redefine marriage. According to the Christian Institute, Mr Lansley's comments appeared on his Flickr page, where he lists his employment as “Head of R & D at Tesco.com.” His exact words were: “I’m also campaigning against evil Christians (that’s not all Christians, just bad ones) who think that gay people should not lead happy lives and get married to their same-sex partners.” Lansley obviously doesn't realise that no real Christian would ever dream of supporting gay marriage - something that will always be a contradiction in terms.

The Telegraph reported yesterday that after these comments came to light, Tesco asked its head of research to remove them. A spokesman for the store said: "We are very sorry that anyone might have thought that there was any blurring of the boundary between his personal comments and his work for Tesco. We have therefore asked him to remove the comments, and he has done so." It seems, though, that no other form of disciplinary action has been taken against Nick Lansley by his employer.

One wonders what would have happened to Mr Lansley if he had declared - with the same apparent venom - that homosexuals or Jews opposed to the redefinition of marriage were also "evil". Believe it or not, most gay people, it would seem, aren't that bothered about redefining something that cannot be redefined by simple act of parliament - especially now that, here in the UK at least, they already enjoy all the legal privileges of marriage if they chose to enter a civil partnership. It is also a fact that the vast majority of other religions - not just Christianity - oppose gay marriage. One wonders why, then, didn't Nick Lansley chose to launch a campaign against these groups, too?

As the Christian Institute website points out, a housing manager from Manchester was demoted earlier this year for posting a moderate comment on Facebook in which he said he didn't think churches should be forced to host homosexual civil partnerships if they didn’t want to. By recording his personal opinion online, this housing manager was exposed to a media frenzy, was publicly humiliated by his employers and also lost 40% of his salary as punishment for his alleged "homophobia". Needless to say, many pro-homosexual commentators were also practically baying for his blood. Whilst this housing manager was demoted and lost a significant portion of his annual income for expressing a mild opinion about homosexual civil partnerships in church, it seems that Tesco couldn't care less that one of its senior executives was willing to refer to Christians as "evil" whilst also declaring himself to be one of its most senior employees.

According to the Telegraph, it also appears that there is hardly any demand at all for civil partnership ceremonies, let alone gay weddings, to be held within ecclesiastical or religious buildings. It seems that a study published last month by the government's Equalities Office showed that only six places of worship out of more than 40,000 across the country want to host civil partnership registration services. Yet both the British Prime Minister and gay-rights lobbyists appear convinced that there is such a huge demand for civil partnerships or gay weddings in church that pressing ahead with an unpopular change in the law is an absolute necessity of our times.

The Equalities Office's consultation on allowing civil partnerships ceremonies in church buildings (as well as mosques, synagogues, etc), also found that as many as 532 faith groups would "opt–in" to allow such events on their premises. Needless to say, these groups tend to be tiny independent religions or feel-good type sects, with no buildings of their own - so their desire to cater for gay union ceremonies is just wishful thinking. Of all those religious organisations that would allow same-sex union registrations on their premises, only congregations from four small pro-gay churches and two Quaker groups said that they actually would definitely consider "applying for approval of their religious premises for the registration of civil partnerships". In other words, only six buildings would or could be used as venues for those wishing to register their gay-union in a religious setting.

The government report also stated that "as many as 1,593 same-sex couples could want to hold their ceremonies in church each year." This means that each of the six religious congregations willing to host civil partnerships might have to deal with over 250 such ceremonies each year. An impossible amount, even for the biggest cathedral to have to deal with. Needless to say, with such a demand for religious gay partnership services (even if it is small in proportion to the overwhelming demand for real sacramental marriage) and not enough buildings available, it really does seem, then, that churches (especially those belonging to the state Church of England) might actually be forced through extra laws or judicial rulings to host such events in the not too distant future.

It is clear to me that neither Tesco nor the British government seem to care about the concerns of people of faith or about the fact that marriage can only exist in the proper sense between one man and one woman. Neither of these organisations, therefore, deserve to be supported by those who care about real justice, which is always wedded to the truth. For that reason, then, and especially as it seems that Tesco will probably not be demoting its head of research and development for calling Christians "evil", I urge all people of faith as well as all men and women of good-will to boycott this store. It might be inconvenient for some of us to avoid Tesco - a shop that seems to have invaded every street in Britain - but why should Christians give their money to an organisation that appears indifferent to the fact that one of its most senior employees openly hates them? Also, avoiding Tesco is hardly a sacrifice - especially seeing that the quality of food on offer in other stores is usually far superior anyway!

[Image: Tesco Express store at Trowbridge, Whiltshire; this work is attributed to rodhullandemu and is published under a creative commons licence; source: Wikimedia Commons]

Archbishop John Nienstedt issues a Prayer for Marriage - to be recited at Masses and before the Blessed Sacrament

2011-12-18T00:47:00.026Z

Archbishop John Nienstedt: A man
with a zeal for souls and a determination
to save society.

In a recent letter to his flock, Archbishop John Nienstedt of St Paul and Minneapolis wrote of the duty incumbent upon Christians to defend the proper definition of marriage. The Archbishop also included a prayer in his letter, asking for God's help in promoting the passage of a "marriage amendment" to Minnesota's constitution, which would safeguard the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. He asked that the prayer be recited during Masses in his diocese as well as by those adoring the Lord truly present in the Blessed Sacrament. Archbishop Nienstedt's message to the people of St Paul and Minneapolis also mentioned that the current struggle to defend and define marriage within the civil sphere demanded a "three-fold approach."

Firstly, the Archbishop said that there was a need for Catholics to educate society concerning the meaning of marriage, and why we believe it is something that is fundamental and intrinsic to humanity. Secondly, he added that committed members of the Church should encourage other Catholics to support marriage and the family - it seems that many so-called Christians in the west are more than willing to ignore their duty to proclaim the gospel in its entirety, whilst they happily get swept along by the secularist tide. Thirdly, the Archbishop asked all Christians and people of good will to "pray and offer sacrifice for the success of all endeavors [sic] that seek to protect and promote marriage."

What follows is a brief discussion on the need to educate our fellow citizens on why marriage is so important - the first of the Archbishop's three suggestions on how we can all help to defend the family. Marriage really is so fundamental to the human race - and the world - that it cannot be messed about with. As Pope Benedict XVI has already shown us, it is entirely possible to defend the the true definition of marriage by using rational arguments from natural law - ones that all human beings can accept, even those opposed to religion or to God. All too often, the supporters of "gay marriage" believe that Christians only oppose their goals because of some verse or other in the Scriptures - a set of books that most gay rights lobbyists either reject or distort. Without detracting from the direct and absolute revelation that is the Bible, and because of the pressing need to teach all sections of society about marriage, many agree that it is often best to approach issues surrounding its definition (as well as other matters, such as abortion) not so much from the truths contained in Scripture (the word of God), but through reference to the world around us (created through the Word of God). As the American Declaration of Independence puts it, there are certain "truths self-evident" to all those are willing to study the universe with an objective mind.

It is a fact that marriage is neither owned by the state nor by any specific religion. Rather, it is grounded in a fundamental and intrinsic truth about humanity, namely that men and women compliment and need each other. Both sexes have a natural and properly ordered need to find an opposite sex partner (a husband or wife) so as to form a special, loving and life-giving bond. The name we give these special and exclusive bonds between men and women is marriage. There was a time, not so long ago, when everyone knew this. Sadly, we are now living in a world where people claim to know everything, although in reality lack basic knowledge about the simplest of things. We've forgotten the basics, whilst convincing ourselves that we are the wisest of all beings.

Although it is true to say that there have been various different sexual unions between humans throughout our history - same-sex partners, multiple partnered unions and even so-called marriages between humans and animals - these partnerships either weren't recognised as marriages within the societies in which they happened, or were aberrations from what has commonly and predominantly been defined as marriage throughout the centuries. Some societies even today recognise some form of same-sex unions or weird bonds between humans and animals (if you don't believe me, read this article), but yet manage to understand why there remains a fundamental difference between these disordered or highly disordered relationships and what we all commonly understand to be marriage - the coming together of one man and one woman to form a stable, loving, life-giving and profound union of the two sexes.

Even atheists, if they really are as rational as some of them claim to be, have to agree that marriage is and always has been defined as a bond between a man and a woman, who freely commit to each other whilst also seeking to create a family. In that sense, marriage isn't a just a wedding day, a party, a serious relationship or a fling - it is the bedrock of society, it is the most important of all human institutions. It is for that reason that all the world's major religions have sought to solemnise it, and why Jesus Christ gave it to the Church as a sacrament of his love for her.

The Church believes that she has a God-given duty to promote, defend and teach the truth - in and out of season. She teaches that murder is a grave sin, which is and always will be wrong; just as she also proclaims that those who oppress the poor will have to answer to God for their crimes, or that the lives of all men and women are sacred. In the same way, then, the Church also has to uphold the fact that marriage is a special state willed by God for the good of humanity. Even those who don't believe in God can still appreciate with some rational understanding that marriage is more than a mere partnership - it is different to civil unions or other forms of sexual partnerships. It brings together the two elements of humanity: male and female. It forms new life, fosters love and secures society.

Belittling marriage by attempting to broaden its definition to such an extent that it basically becomes meaningless is an extremely dangerous thing to do. It runs the risk of exposing our most cherished and important human institution to a deadly assault - one from which it might never recover. It might also lead, one day, to complete relativism in human relationships - to the extent that solemn vows become worthless, differences in the genders are destroyed, and marriage is open to all sorts of horrific misinterpretations. In less that two decades from now, some children might actually believe that a same-sex union is the same as a marriage between a man and a woman - even if their inner moral code will surely inform them, and anyone with any sense, that this is not really the case.

Surely, St Paul's letter to the Romans is amongst the most prescient in Scripture. Its first chapter should be compulsory reading in Christian households - for it describes our western, decadent and post-modernist world better than any philosophical tract or economist's theory. In this letter, the Paul teaches that the truth - or God - is entirely knowable through studying the world around us. Anyone with the slightest wisdom or intelligence can see how simple, accessible and beautiful truth is - open to all, especially those with humility and a willingness to be objective and properly rational (as opposed to the truncated "reason" spouted by some of out more egotistical leaders of atheism and nihilism).

According to Paul, those who reject that truth which is clearly observed in the laws of nature and the natural law must be blinded by some disorder - an egotism, a narcissism, a form of pride that is ultimately tragic and delusional. His letter to the Romans also teaches that one of the signals indicating a lost ability to be clear-thinking and rational - a collective exchanging the truth for a lie - is a general acceptance of disordered sexual behaviours and the ultimate abandonment of the one thing that keeps us all going: marriage. I really suggest that those who are genuine seekers after the truth should meditate with some effort upon the first chapter of St Paul's letter to the Romans. It really is the epistle of our times.

Two days ago, the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, asked Church leaders to be more vocal in defending Christian morality and to be brave in the face of the dictatorship of relativism (although he might not have put it exactly like that). It is strange to note, then, that the same man has often shown himself to be fundamentally opposed to absolute truth and Christian teaching when it comes to ethical matters - even making "gay marriage" (surely one of the supreme goals of relativism's tyranny) one of his main political priorities. It seems that the Prime Minister sometimes appears to be like a prophet unable to heed his own warnings! To call for stronger moral guidance from the Church on the one hand, whilst destroying the moral fabric of the nation on the other, must surely rank as the summit of hypocrisy? This is why our political leaders need prayer - for they need the wisdom to defend what is right and the courage to reject what is wrong.

Therefore, I end this post with an adapted form of Archbishop John Nienstedt's Prayer for Marriage - which I have changed so that those of us living outside his diocese might be able to pray it, too. It seems that the bedrock of humanity, known as marriage - that beautiful union of male and female - is under attack in many parts of today's world. Those of us who seek to defend the human family need all the graces we can muster! For that reason, I urge you all to join with Archbishop Nienstedt's in his prayer and to actively work for the preservation of marriage.

Heavenly Father,

Through the powerful intercession of the Holy Family, grant to all your children* the many graces we need to foster, strengthen, and support faith-filled, holy marriages and holy families.

May the vocation of married life, a true calling to share in your own divine and creative life, be recognized by all believers as a source of blessing and joy, and a revelation of your own divine goodness.

Grant to us all the gift of courage to proclaim and defend your plan for marriage, which is the union of one man and one woman in a lifelong, exclusive relationship of loving trust, compassion, and generosity, open to the conception of children.

We make our prayer through Jesus Christ, who is Lord forever and ever. Amen.

* The original wording is "grant to this local Church"

[Image: Archbishop John C Nienstedt; source: A Catholic View via Google images]

Will Pope Benedict XVI attend the 50th Eucharistic Congress in Dublin? If so, he might be comforted by the successful 19th Eucharistic Congress held at Westminster Cathedral in 1908

2011-12-16T00:35:00.019Z

Cardinal Vannutelli giving Benediction to the crowd
after the "Hostless" Eucharistic Procession in 1908

There has been much speculation recently as to whether or not Pope Benedict XVI will visit Ireland next year for the 50th International Eucharistic Congress, held in Dublin. Earlier this year, the Irish government expressed open - and unjustified - anger towards the Holy See, and diplomatic relations between both states cooled considerably. In fact, with the recent closure of the Irish Embassy to the Holy See, it seemed certain that the current Irish government would never welcome a papal visit to Ireland. Yesterday, though, the Irish Times reported that the country's Minister for Foreign Affairs, Eamon Gilmore, had confirmed that Pope Benedict XVI is welcome to visit Ireland for next year's important Eucharistic Congress.

The concept of holding Eucharistic congresses was the brainchild of Bishop Gaston de Ségur, who organised the first one at Lille, France, on 21 June 1881. This event was held as a means for clergy and laity to bear witness to the Real Presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. It was also designed as a gathering of theologians with a specific interest in Eucharistic theology. Within a few years, Bishop de Ségur's concept had received papal approval and International Eucharistic Congresses began to be held. By 1890, over 150,000 people travelled to the Eucharistic Congress held in Antwerp, whilst the following Congress was held in Jerusalem only three years later.

Prime Minister Herbert Asquith in 1908

One of the most controversial and yet successful Eucharistic Congresses was held in London in 1908. The opposition to this event and the diplomatic problems caused by it were far graver than those currently facing next year's Congress in Dublin. As a result of lobbying by extremist Protestants prior to the London Eucharistic Congress, the British Prime Minister, Herbert Asquith, had to intervene to stop Catholics from processing with the Blessed Sacrament through the streets of London. Referring to a clause in the Roman Catholic Relief Act (1829) that banned any exercise "of the rites or ceremonies of the Roman Catholic religion, [and the wearing of] habits..., save within the usual places of worship of the Roman Catholic religion", some anti-Catholic agitators successfully argued that the event's planned Procession of the Blessed Sacrament was both unconstitutional and illegal.

As a result of his negative interfering in a peaceful religious parade, Asquith suffered politically and was also severely criticised by commentators in both the British and international press. He lost the important support of the majority of Catholic voters, too. Two members of his Cabinet even resigned over the affair. The first being the devoutly Catholic Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Lords, George Robinson, 1st Marquess of Ripon, who was angered by his Liberal government's anti-Catholic stance. The second being the Home Secretary, Herbert Gladstone (son of William Gladstone), whose insistence that Catholic processions involving the Eucharist were unlawful was eventually itself deemed illegal (or unjustifiable).

Archbishop (later Cardinal) Bourne at the
19th Eucharistic Congress in 1908

The 19th International Eucharistic Congress was held in the newly built Westminster Cathedral, London, from 9 - 13 September 1908. It had been invited to the city by the then Archbishop of Westminster, Archbishop Francis Bourne (who was subsequently raised to the cardinalate in 1911). The Eucharistic Congress was the first ever event of its kind to be held in an English speaking country. It was also the first time that a Papal Legate had visited England since the Reformation (Cardinal Reginald Pole) - Pope Pius X was keen to send a representative to this Congress at Westminster. For that reason alone, many British Protestants became quite paranoid about the whole thing - fearing that Rome was on the verge reconquering England through the use of its beautiful and powerful liturgies!

To add to the Protestant anxiety, the Papal Legate, Cardinal Vincenzo Vannutelli, had come to London with an array of other high-ranking ecclesiastics - the like of which had not been seen in England before (or many other places, come to that). In fact, it might even be true to say that no such gathering as this had been seen outside Rome for quite some time. Another six cardinals came with Vannutelli to London, witnessing with him to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. (Sadly, one of these great men, the highly respected Cardinal Francois Mathieu, died in England shortly after the Congress had finished). These cardinals were joined by fourteen archbishops, seventy bishops and an innumerable amount of priests, religious and laity. One of the priests at the gathering was Father Eugenio Pacelli (the future Pope Pius XII), who also met Winston Churchill for diplomatic talks in between visits to Westminster Cathedral for Eucharistic devotions. No wonder that some frightened Protestants thought that the Catholic Church had come back to reclaim what was rightfully hers!

Although the British government had effectively banned the Blessed Sacrament from the Congress's closing ceremony, a procession did take place - but without the Host. In fact, more people turned out for this procession to mark the closing of the Eucharistic Congress than had lined the route for Queen Victoria's funeral cortege a few years earlier. During the event, the Papal Legate wore his court dress, whilst many of the clergy were attired in choir dress, draping their habits and vestments over their arms in submission to the government's request that they abide by the letter of the Catholic Relief Act.

Cardinal Vannutelli, Papal Legate to the
19th International Eucharistic Congress in
London's Westminster Cathedral, wearing the
Eucharistic Congress medal (1908)

The procession also saw the Pope's representative attended by a guard of honour made up of eleven noblemen - headed by the Duke of Norfolk, Premier Duke and Earl Marshal of England. Although the procession lacked the Blessed Sacrament, throngs of people - both devout and curious - lined the route that began at Westminster Cathedral and went through Victoria and Westminster before returning to the Cathedral once more. After the procession, Cardinal Vincenzo Vannutelli gave Solemn Benediction from the Cathedral's balcony to the tens of thousands of worshippers who had gathered below.

One of the international newspapers that was highly critical of the British government's ban on the Eucharist from the streets of London was the New York Times - which was not then as anti-Catholic as it sometimes appears to be nowadays! Here are a few paragraphs from its report on the historic "Eucharistic" Procession (minus Blessed Sacrament) that took to the streets of London in September 1908: -

LONDON, Sept 13 - The great procession of Catholic clergy, which brought the Eucharistic Congress to an end, was held this afternoon amid scenes such as the English churchmen who planned it had never anticipated. Cardinal Vannutelli, the Pope's Legate, walked at the head wearing scarlet robes and hat, but not carrying the host. He was accompanied by a bodyguard of English peers, of whom the Duke of Norfolk was the most prominent and a concourse of Cardinals, Archbishops and Bishops, who were also attired in unceremonial robes instead of the vestments which it had been originally purposed they should wear.

No such throngs of people have been seen in London since Queen Victoria's funeral, if even then. The purpose of Archbishop Bourne, the head of the Westminster Diocese, and his associates, who arranged the programme, had been to have the host carried through the streets in the rear of Westminster Cathedral, so that the great body of Catholics who were unable to participate in any of the services within the cathedral should have an opportunity of joining in the Eucharistic observances and of seeing all the high ecclesiastics present in London on this memorable occasion.

The route of the procession was laid through the quiet streets adjacent to the Cathedral [Victoria Street, Horseferry Road and Vincent Square], and but for the unexpected partisan strife which a discussion of this ceremony brought on, it would probably have been solemnized quietly and in a reverent atmosphere. As it was, only a few were openly and demonstratively hostile. The Catholic element cheered heartily while the procession passed by and throughout the route, but there was heard also considerable "booing" of the sort the English people use in theatres to express displeasure at the play. [LOL!]

[...]

Pontifical High Mass at the 1908 Congress
When the congregation poured out of the edifice they found that the crowd was already assembling. Large forces of police were assisted by some 15,000 Catholics, who had volunteered to line the route, but even this strong army of men was unable at times to prevent the participants in the parade from being shouldered by the curious. Before the procession started vespers were [sic] sung within the Cathedral, at the conclusion of which the prelates passed down the nave, singing "Faith of Our Fathers" which was taken up by the congregation and the vast crowds without.

As the head of the procession appeared from the Cathedral doors a cheer went up, which was repeated as Cardinal after Cardinal came slowly out, followed by the Archbishops, Bishops, minor prelates of the Church, and a great army of white-surpliced men singing hymns. Most of the prelates carried their vestments over their arms, but the Legate was in full court dress, his scarlet robes and red hat lending distinction to his commanding figure. The hands of the Pope's representative, which were to have carried the Host, showered continual blessings upon the people, who reverently bowed the knee.

[...]

In the streets surrounding the cathedral the prelates passed through avenues of keeling adherents of their faith, the curious and any who might have come to jeer being crowded out of this vicinity. At one or two points further away, however, the processionalists had practically to force a passage through the crowds which broke through the police lines. At one place, where several streets converge [Westminster Cathedral's historian informs me that this was probably Strutton Ground], the crush was so great that the spectators broke up the procession, but the police, stationed at this point in strong force, managed eventually to clear a narrow lane, through which the Papal Legate and the others passed in single file.

On their return to the Cathedral the prelates marched around the interior of the edifice, the Legate carrying the Host as he would have done in the streets had not the Government interposed and objection.

Those who had been crowded out of the Cathedral were permitted to participate in the ceremony, as the Legate , robed in his vestments, appeared on the balcony outside the building and presented the sacred sacrament and pronounced the benediction. The vast assemblage that filled the square then sang hymns, and the members of the Catholic societies, with banners flying, marched through the streets to their halls and churches, some of them proceeding later to the stations where trains were waiting to take them back to the provincial centres whence they had come to attend the services. In the meantime the Papal Legate within the building pronounced the benediction and the congress closed. (comments in parentheses mine)

Medal from the 1908 Eucharistic Congress

Reading this account of the closing procession for the 19th International Eucharistic Congress reminded me of Pope Benedict XVI's visit to England last year - especially the Mass he celebrated at Westminster Cathedral and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament he gave in Hyde Park before a crowd of 80,000 young people. Many embittered opponents of Jesus Christ had tried their best to stop the Pope's visit to Britain last year, even threatening to take legal measures against the Pontiff. In the end, of course, it was Christ's enemies that were confounded, whilst - as happened at the 1908 Eucharistic Congress - Catholicism received a huge boost.

Needless to say, some enemies of the Church have been trying their best to stop the 50th Eucharistic Congress in Dublin from being successful. They would undoubtedly prefer it if the event was stopped altogether and will do anything to try and prevent or dissuade Pope Benedict XVI from attending this significant Catholic celebration - a profoundly powerful witness to the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. For that reason, then, I urge those who advise the Pope to encourage him to visit Ireland - for if Christ's enemies are already at the gate, a joyful triumph for his Church is guaranteed.

[Images: 1 Benediction at the end of the 1908 Eucharistic Congress held at Westminster Cathedral (London); source: Solomon, I have surpassed thee. 2 Herbert Asquith; this image is in the public domain; source: Wikimedia Commons. 3 Archbishop Francis Bourne at the 1908 Congress; source: Solomon, I have surpassed thee. 4 Cardinal Vincenzo Vannutelli; source: Solomon, I have surpassed thee. 5 Pontifical High Mass at Westminster Cathedral during the 1908 Eucharistic Congress; source: Solomon, I have surpassed thee. 6 A medal struck specifically for the the occasion of the 19th International Eucharistic Congress in London; source: eBid]