In Our Bones

Women Priests

Sat, 29 Oct 2016 21:24:26 GMT

While everyone is still scratching their heads about Francis' comments on marriage, and getting excited over gender theory, there is a little matter on the back burner. One that could be the next major front of attack - to weaken the church in all she maintains: I refer simply to the forthcoming push for women priests. That's right, this single point links to all others. Indulge my bit of drama and ask me 'how so'?

First of all, OK, Francis hasn't actually said women priests, but on 2nd August he officially instituted a commission to study the issue of a diaconate of women. For years advocates of women's ordination have argued that historically 'deacon' can mean more or less. This was enough to get the Press' hopes up at least! The Beeb said a 'chink' had appeared. Yet in 2002 an international Theological Commission concluded a five-year study that gave advocates for women's ordination nothing much to hold on to. I'm not saying Francis wants women priests, but he's created a bandwagon that others will eagerly jump on. Little doubt, a push is coming.

But where's the link to the 'all the church teaches' thing? What's the fuss with whether there's a bloke or a blokette at the altar? In one word: a sign, a symbol. OK that was two words. The thing is, all sacraments flow from the Eucharist. They and the Eucharist are both signs and instruments of grace. Destroy the sign, and what have you got? The priest is a sign of the man Jesus, who being God acts through the priest to make the Eucharist present for us. Put a woman in the place of the man and what have you done to the sign? Enough said.

We know that a storm is coming over gender, so where better to strike a gender attack than at that sign which is the fount of all grace. This serves two purposes up front: destroy the sacrament, and destroy people's sense of sex difference, on which is built humanity. It was said of old that when the Devil rebelled saying he would not serve God, it was over the small issue of God's intentions for mankind, to elevate us to the divine. The Devil wants to destroy not just you and me, but our ability to be fruitful and in that way, to spoil one of God's works, which was not about him.

The Sanctuary and the Nave

Fri, 07 Oct 2016 07:27:32 GMT

Coming from an Anglican tradition into Catholicism, one of the things of which one is aware is the very different approach to the governance of parishes.

In a Catholic Parish, the priest is ruler; the only formally required parish body is a Finance Council, and even that can do not more than advise and guide; the guidance can be ignored. Where a parish has mature parochial lay structures in place - a functional Pastoral Council, a capable and established Finance Council, laity active in the community and in the life of the parish - it remains entirely open to the priest to demolish the lot on a summary basis. A change of Parish Priest, indeed, places all such structures in abeyance until he chooses to reinstate them - if he does.

But surely, one would say, in the modern world in which people are educated and have professional skills which aid in the organisation and ministry of a parish, no priest would do such a thing! And equally surely one would be wrong. Parish clergy are a law unto themselves in such things.

Then we look over the fence into the Anglican world, and we see Churchwardens with legally constituted powers (even the power of arrest!); we see Parish Councils with a persistent and effective nature. Depending on the nature of the living, they may be the authority which, alongside the Bishop, appoints the priest. We can't say that they always work well - and there are cases in which they become sources of conflict - but in most Anglican parishes, these structures serve them well; not only bringing lay experience and ability into the frame, but also freeing the ministers to more active ministry.

True, we see a lot wrong with Anglicanism - otherwise we would not have chosen to swim the Tiber - but we have to wonder why it is that the Catholic Church retains, as a matter of canon law, structures which appear unfit for the world in which we now live. That was OK for the mediaevals, we may think, when people were less educated and the priest was the source of all learning, but not now!

But wait. The fact turns out to be that this was, in fact, not even OK for the mediaevals. The office of Churchwarden is documented in the 1300s in England; there is a reference to the responsibilities of the role in the Synod of Exeter in 1287 (a synod notorious for other reasons, but that is not relevant here). The role of Parish Clerk (and this as a parochial rather then a civil role) is documented from the same times, with the parish paying for the Clerk's time. The Wardens were responsible for the fabric of the nave and it maintenance; the Priest for the Sanctuary; they were mutually dependent. This was a time when the Norman kings were starting to speak English, and when older English - or Saxon - ways were starting to have some influence after the dark times of Norman repression.

Now, rightly or wrongly, we tend to see England as a land in which freedoms developed early; Magna Carta and all that. Actually reading Magna Carta soon dispels the idea that this was a charter of the rights of the common man; but the lay roles in parish administration perhaps indicate the emancipation of at least some common men and women; at least those with the ability (and perhaps the funds) to take up such a role. At the least we see here an acknowledgement that the charism of priesthood is not the only source of the ability to take financial, legal and administrative responsibility.

So what happened? Why is it that when Catholicism returned to England, it did not pick up the traditions it had assuredly had in this country? Had the Reformation sent it reeling into a less developed and more autocratic Europe, from which it returned imbued with ideas foreign to England? Or did the Church of the counter-reformation fear that the common people, the laity, would be more likely to lead it astray if allowed any measure of control; that it risked heresy spreading - although those most instrumental in the spreading of heresy had always been renegade clergy? This would be a truly fascinating subject for study, if one only had the time.

Whatever the reasons, I believe we have lost something valuable; that the autocracy of Catholic parishes is a weakness when compared with our own English Catholic tradition of the wardens, the clerk, the sexton, the vestry committee. In a time in which we have been able to allow the English of Cranmer into our sanctuaries, is it not time to allow English governance back into the nave?

Half in Ruins

Fri, 13 May 2016 00:15:39 GMT

Mary first appeared to the visionaries in Fatima 99 years ago today. Do those messages say anything to us today? I've found as soon as you mention Fatima, people immediately turn to the third secret. So rather than fight the urge, let's look at that.

The validity of the official text has been much disputed, but it's the only text we have. It speaks of a "big city half in ruins". The official commentary sees the city as symbolising human history. I don't think anyone would disagree that as the Kingdom of God has already come, the reference can also include the City of God. In our time and context this could be taken as representing the Church on earth. In the third secret, we see corpses along the way, presumably mainly in the half ruined city. There is specific mention of clergy and the laity who follow them - all being shot by soldiers outside the city, up the mountain below the cross. Effectively a second batch of the departed. The commentary reads these as martyrs of the faith, and with good reason. But again, let's remember that in scripture death can be a metaphor for sin: for spiritual death.

The third-secret vision does not specify that all the dead earlier along the way are martyrs. So today we have those who suffer for their faithfulness even with martyrdom, and those who fall into error and sin: two different kinds of death. In similar fashion, the shooting soldiers can be the physically aggressive forces of Communism, but they can also represent those who spread the subtle lies of one who mimics God's ways, twisting truth around to produce the opposite outcomes. This subtler reading can still refer to atheistic communism, even today, or to the new atheism spreading in our land. Or it can refer to morality-light Catholicism, which sets our desires as the criteria for judging our lives. Many fall for any or all of the errors.

The tasks to which Fatima called the ordinary faithful remain unfinished. And so the warnings remain relevant in their principles. We have to identify how the battle is playing out in our context and remain true. The formula from heaven delivered at Fatima, is simple faithful commitment to Jesus in His church. To follow the long-standing consistent teaching and not some new spin.

The earthly portion of today's spiritual city is perhaps still half in ruins, or worse! The enemy is still wreaking havoc but on ever new fronts. As we, lay people, follow the priests and bishops, like in the vision, let's be mindful of the way our clergy lead us. Whether upwards into spiritual life, along the way of the true church, or into pretend solutions, the dead-end craters of exploding lies, that deliver spiritual death. The way to safety is found in Mary's example of faithfulness to her son - reminded to us by the apparitions of Fatima. You can't be faithful to a changing message. Beware those who teach a new gospel. Jesus said that the weeds are mixed in with the wheat in the field: he wasn't talking just about the laity.

How can I say that? Is not our Pope infallible? Our Pope is Peter. All the Popes are Peter. Peter is a continuous grace-fed role. There are not many Peters with different views, there is only one Office of Peter. But there are many individual Office holders, Popes in history, and according to scripture all have sinned in some and various ways (Romans 3:23). When the Office of Peter has established teaching within its competence, it is that which cannot err or change (John 16:13). If a Pope makes a subsequent mistake, God could strike him down, but then again, He might not. God is sovereign. We have to be faithful. Can I recommend the 13th Day film to you? The children show us how it's done. Praise God!

The Joy of Love

Tue, 19 Apr 2016 23:04:29 GMT

English Bishop: "the trouble with Francis, is holding all the things he says together". I won't say who said this to me, but it was a little while back. I wonder if he has a clearer understanding of our Pope's thinking now. For two years we waited for Francis' Exhortation on Marriage - 'Amoris Laetitia' (The Joy of Love), hoping for some clarity. Now it's here I find the quote above quite apt. People seem to find what they want in it, from fear to favour. I began to think we were moving to some conclusion when Cardinal Burke said that the Exhortation changes no teaching or practice. He said it's just an opinion piece by Francis. Being a top church lawyer, he should know. But then we had Pope Francis himself answer questions on just this point - about the diverse readings that are coming out. Francis seemed to contradict Burke, saying that much has changed after all. Francis said if you want to understand the Exhortation correctly, read Cardinal Schonborn’s presentation.

So Francis thinks he's changed things, but to understand what's changed, we need to go to Schonborn. So much for clear communication! I'll try and paraphrase what I understood Schonborn was saying.

In the past, talk of 2 categories of marriage: regular and irregular, created a barrier which those outside the regular box, found discouraging and even insurmountable.

He doesn't say this explicitly but this observation of a 'barrier', seems to call for what lawyers might call a 'work around'. We can't change the rules, so we work around them to deliver what is wanted. When seeking a work around, especially one which changes direction, a typical tactic is to look back to basics: to present what we want to achieve on solid foundations. So back to basics we go:

"It is a matter of reaching out to everyone", "speaking about all situations without cataloguing them, without categorising, with that outlook of fundamental benevolence that is associated with the heart of God, with the eyes of Jesus that exclude no-one, that welcome all and grant the 'joy of the Gospel' to all."

"In this climate of welcome, the discourse on the Christian vision of marriage and the family becomes an invitation, an encouragement, to the joy of love in which we can believe and which excludes no-one, truly and sincerely no-one"

If everyone is invited to the joy of love with no exceptions, then married joy is proposed here as something everyone can find. Even that is, in what 'old speak' termed 'irregular marriages', like the divorced remarried. There is no reference I can find here, to having to live as brother and sister. I read this as an encouragement to all couples in potentially any form of union, to borrow from Catholic principles, to foster closer and more permanent coupling.

Schonborn sets this against a new background where the different situations in life have simply been accepted.

"My great joy as a result of this document resides in the fact that it coherently overcomes that artificial, superficial, clear division between 'regular' and 'irregular' ".

He continues, that the document simply: "subjects everyone to the common call of the Gospel".

First of all, I don't need to explain what a contrast this is to past Church teaching. It warrants an explanation of what we are to make of the past view. Was it wrong? How come? Schonborn is silent on such matters.

Secondly there seems to be a mixing of two previously distinct things here. That is: the general call to everyone to receive the gospel as a grace, and the specific grace given to an exclusive lifelong marriage. The first of these, would typically invite everyone to practice charity towards others (multiple people), but the second involves initiatives that we can only take in relation to one other person out of the whole human race. The identity of that unique individual is declared in a sacramental marriage. The principles of 'multiple' vs 'singular', are distinct, they are not mixable. You can no more invite the village into a singular marriage, than you can invite those outside the grace of marriage, to walk in that grace. Either we believe there is a specific grace for marriage, or we don't.

I just can't make sense of Schonborn's presentation without jettisoning the specificity and exclusivity of marriage.

I'm concerned, because if people in irregular relationships stay the course, would not the lack of discrimination between regular and irregular relationships, would it not mislead such couples if sacramental marriage is not possible for them? For example, one of the positive tips in the Christian model they could come to hear, would propose they try to not contracept. The standard line is this allows the couple to give themselves more fully to one another. Assuming they follow along this far, they would reasonably think this is so their love may be fruitful, as is God's love. This is after all positive inviting talk. This practice is supposed to help bring the couple into deeper tri-union with each other and God, joining in His creative work. But how long can we keep the mention of sin hidden under a bushel? At some point they might discover that actually, the Church teaches them to stop and desist. That their exclusive union is not what God ultimately wants for them. If I might borrow a term from the world of finance, I'd say that they were being mis-sold the dream.

At best, I read this de-emphasis and trivialisation of irregularity as a manifesto for Truth delayed. Purely on human terms, that doesn't seem fair or right.

When Pro-Life is Not Enough

Sun, 13 Mar 2016 16:15:08 GMT

Two years ago today, England and Wales became the 16th country to welcome same-sex marriage. Scotland came next. To give you some context, that puts us in the first 10% of all the countries in the world. However, push Mr or Ms average to explain the difference between the two forms of marriage, and they'll struggle. Reluctantly they'll admit gender comes into it, but only as a purely incidental and inconsequential point. Catholics do little better, the consensus is that fairness requires the same-sex option.

This isn't political correctness gone extreme. When it comes to equating the two forms of marriage, people genuinely can't explain the difference in a convincing way. If that's you, let me help with a tiny hint why... Contraception!

Contraception is changing the nature of marriage and it's changing us too. It's subtle, few people spot it, and then it's too late - the key God provided has been lost - people don't know what's missing so they don't know how to turn around. Still, the semblance of marriage carries on, everyone assumes it's the same as for centuries back, nay millennia. But no, marriage changed long before 2014. Some mark the 1930 CofE Lambeth conference as the turning point. Others think it's the Pill and the 60's sexual revolution.

Either way, we've had at least two generations to get our messages clear. How we doing? Well you can't share what you don't have. Most of our clergy never fully grasped the importance, and reading encyclicals yourself can sometimes feel like reading Greek. It should have been appreciated and cascaded down universally. It wasn't. So contraception wove its subtle way, changing our sense of marriage profoundly. What God designed as a natural, instinctive, inbuilt, spiritual growth device, is now somewhat broken.

Jesus used the parable of yeast, for something that's small but changes everything. Contraception is presented as a tiny thing, yet one our society values most highly: there's a clue!

When civil partnerships were proposed here, the Church in England spoke strongly of the importance of the 'institution of marriage', but defined it in terms too weak to bring out what's special in non-contraceptive marriage. Their presentation didn't contrast the same-sex model enough. Our leaders failed to see, how the widespread acceptance of contraception has become our weakest flank.

They opposed civil partnerships mainly as a weakening of emphasis on male-female marriage, instead of highlighting the distinction. The impacts on children were rightly brought to the fore but not the difference in coupling. So when 'gay marriage' was tabled soon after, our leaders thought it politic to say civil partnerships already provide equality. They said no-one needs 'gay marriage' as well. When all along they should have been explaining why same-sex coupling is different! No surprise the secular perception, that the only difference is in the heads of a few staid Catholics.

With all this softening to contraceptive mentality, it's little surprise that hearing Francis' compassionate mood music, our leaders wobbled. Leaning now in ever more progressive directions. Not having understood the heart of the teaching on contraception, they lack the reasoning to see the errors in the progressive position. They are likely unable to distinguish same-sex from male-female coupling beyond the seemingly arbitrary, sex-difference preference. Now we're all progressive because even if we feel instinctively there's a difference, we can't tell what it is any more. What were we thinking for x thousand years?

Shortly we anticipate Francis' 'Apostolic Exhortation' on family. A great opportunity to remind, NO, to present why contraception is 'toxic' to marriage. Those in the know see the contraception link to abortion, fewer see the link to weakening of marriage. Contraceptive marriages are in this sense more like same-sex marriages (see below). It's non-contracepting marriages that are most different here. Francis prefers to avoid telling people how to live, one of his few reluctant 'red lines' seems to be abortion, but not contraception, at least so far. I pray he will start to tell it as it is, the world needs his witness. But if he does, will English Catholics be ready to echo this good news?

For the curious:

Although opinions are changing and other arguments could be put, I propose there are three basic points that distinguish a natural marriage as God intended:

sex, meaning both difference and activity
openness to potential fertility - children
lifelong exclusive commitment, expressing love as a decision.

The first point is the foundation, the last is the door, the middle one is the consequence of the first and the most natural call for the last. Sacramentally they are more than the above.

Compare this to a permanently contracepting opposite sex couple:

sex, meaning both difference and activity
?
?

Openness to children is obviously gone while contracepting. In the natural context that was the reason for requiring the last point: lifelong commitment. So at best the last bullet point becomes an option subject to ongoing consensus or the arrival of children. Indeed there is no inherent factor requiring exclusivity.

With same sex couples, we have:

sex, meaning activity
x
?

Gone is sexual difference - the most basic meaning of the word 'sex'. Children are only an external option unrelated to the sexual activity without some intermediaries. There is no intrinsic reason for lifelong commitment or exclusivity - these are personal options outside the category, or such categorisation becomes arbitrary.

Just on a point count, do you see the similarity between contracepting and same-sex 'marriage'?

References:

13 March 2014 was when the law came into force in England, same sex marriages contracted overseas could be recognised the same day, the first English same sex marriages were then contracted at midnight on the 29th March 2014.

http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/content/download/28337/193096/file/CBCEW-Submission-Civil-Partnerships-30Sept2003.doc

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-francis-abortion-is-evil-not-the-solution-to-zika-virus-67368/

Un-Catholic Times

Sun, 17 Jan 2016 20:19:08 GMT

Renewal it seems, may be a bit like beauty: in the eye of the beholder. I recall a sermon about how, oh if only we dressed in ‘Sunday best’, then everyone would want to join our Church! I had my doubts. Perhaps easier consensus is found bemoaning attendance numbers. Yet there are various reasons to turn up, so now that Pope Francis is ‘shaking things up’ for renewal, we need to ask what we hope to get once the dust settles.

Looking at the two Synods on the Family, I’d say right now, we’re in roughly three camps – two divided over what Jesus wants, and the larger third just watching from the sidelines. Who’s right?

I’ll come to Jesus in a bit. First, many see Francis picking up hopes from the 1970’s, for a more open Church. One that would catch up with the world. Those were popular hopes, but strangely our numbers began going down. By the end of the 70’s John Paul 2 had begun to call us to cast into the deep, to be authentic, not to pine after ‘progress’ like contraception, trial marriage, and women priests. At the same time, the secular atmosphere strengthened, and you listened to who you preferred. It became easy to forget Heaven and Hell if you wanted. Many wanted.

Result? The remnant in Church appeared a bit more united in purpose – everyone who didn’t like it had left! If I had a hope at the end of the Noughties, it was that perhaps we were forming a more faithful base, to counter the secular tide. But we were still weak in Christ (Matthew 13:58).

So then came Francis’ fresh approach: the supposedly excluded are included. Some people are excited, others fear losing authenticity, and most are just unsure. No surprise then the divided lay reactions captured by the press. You can even see the scope for activism. If I were a supporter of say, gay agenda progress in the Church, then what better tactic than voice hopes as an ‘included Catholic’. In the current atmosphere, I’d expect a pretty clear run.

Dear gentle reader, will it surprise you if I suggest many clergy may be more open to change than their congregations? Think about it, it’s harder to drop out if you’re in service, so you cling to hopes of change and lessen emphasis on what you don’t like. 1 in 10 British priests recently pleaded publicly with the Synod not to deform teaching on marriage. It was unprecedented, but still a minority stand. I’d love to be proved wrong here, but think a lot of our clergy never bought into the heart of JP2 and Benedict 16’s teaching, like on contraception. I look back how the Catholic Times newspaper used to reflect JP2’s teaching with very gentle opposing voices. Then a priest-columnist expanded much further into areas seemingly impossible before Francis: including change on handling remarriage and sexuality. There seemed to me a prolonged dearth of balancing views in both columns and letters, suggesting a revised editorial initiative. The internet soon exploded with excitement over Cardinals pushing for change (who we later found had a secret network – the Sankt-Gallen group – which claims Francis’ support). I was struck how accurately the paper had anticipated their lines before they spoke. Was it coincidence, supernatural guidance, or is the network much larger? The fact the paper continued to be promoted in our churches also suggests to me some sympathy.

So much for the proportions, but who’s right? Committed Christians sometimes make the mistake of thinking that their spiritual path or understanding is the only one the Spirit uses. So we hear the dressing up panacea above, the Charismatic panacea, the Latin liturgy panacea, and the personal encounter panacea. Little surprise we now hear the ‘come as you are, no change required panacea’! Not all spiritual experiences are equal though, which is why we’re Catholic: the ‘Pontiff’ is supposed to ‘bridge’ all the good things the Spirit does in any or all of the above, for the greater good. But he has to filter out error as well.

It seems to me that those who call “come to the Eucharist as you are” (we’re not talking clothes here!), fail to anticipate they would build an army of the blind to lead the blind (Matthew 15:14 & Matthew 15:19). I say this with no heart for condemnation, but believing that it’s knowing the truth that sets us free (John 8:32).

Consider this night-time metaphor – ‘how can anyone land the plane if the runway lights are out? I’ve yet to hear the so called progressives say, at what point of the journey, they would encourage those divorced and then remarried outside the recognition of the Church, to stop you-know-what? Ignorance can mitigate sin only so long as ignorance is maintained. Do our Church leaders really want to keep the landing-lights turned off deliberately and indefinitely?

So to Jesus: we mustn’t ask what He hopes, for God doesn’t hope in the colloquial sense. He asks, and the requests don’t change with the decade. Revelation is for all time. Never mind Francis’ ‘shake it up’, ‘I’m not telling you yet’ tactics. He can’t cancel the revelation of what is marriage, because this forms a core of the opening and closing covers of Scripture itself. When the dust settles, God’s saving plan will be the same it was – Mark 1:15 – “repent and believe the Gospel“!

Be Not Afraid

Sun, 03 Jan 2016 10:18:29 GMT

There is a timidity about the modern Catholic Church in England; and that is not a good thing. One could speculate that this comes from the past; from the centuries of the suppression of Catholicism. It is 480 years since the separation of the English Church from Rome by Henry VIII, and a third of that time since the restoration of the hierarchy in England.

160 years is a long time, yet there is still something of the alien about the English Catholic Church. Read down the list of Bishops of England, and there is a strong sprinkling of names from Ireland. One of our Cardinals (and by many accounts the more influential one) is called Cormac Murphy O’Connor: not a name redolent of the English countryside. Read down the lists of priests in most Dioceses and it’s the same.

Now without the support of the Irish the English Church would not exist; but with the support of the Irish what we have is a Church with a limited claim to an English identity, and even with a distinctly un-English identity. And that can be an inhibiting factor in making Catholicism a recognised factor in English life; it’s certainly an inhibiting factor in getting Catholic Bishops as far into the public respect as they might like.

There is a temptation in these circumstances to seek to merge in, to adopt the social norms of a society based on Protestant foundations, to play down the differences that make Catholicism what is is. To make, indeed, a Catholic Church which compromises with what England, during her centuries of its rejection of Catholicism, has become. This is a temptation to which it seem that the Catholic Bishops of England (and Wales: but I’m addressing this from an English point of view), have succumbed, more or less en masse, and over a lengthy period.

The English Church has been led to regard itself as a Church which will reflect society rather than challenging it; a Church which is comfortable for the English establishment, rather than one which will call the nation to account.

The problem with this is twofold.

First, it generates a laity which, far from the informed and enlightened laity envisaged by Newman, sees Church teaching as an optional extra to an essentially socially conditioned life. There is little to keep such a laity in Church. Church may be a local social club with some added spirituality; it may be the route to some of the best free schooling available. It’s not a daily walk with a challenging and all-consuming faith.
Second, it’s a dereliction of the calling of the Church to be the light of the world. If we live comfortably in the world only by dimming the light, then we do not truly respect the source of that light. There is a very real difference between ‘having the smell of the sheep’ and smothering the sheep with the smell of the slaughterhouse.

This is perhaps a way in which the Ordinariate can lift the Catholic Church in England. They bring with them the patrimony of the Anglican Church; and a part of that patrimony is the experience of being an established Church, present in society by right and not by purchase through compromise.

Let us hope that that influence can combine with a more genuine and radical English Catholicism to give us a new direction.