Friday, July 01, 2016

Subsidiarity is Personal Autonomy



During the referendum campaign, not only Catholics but many others referred to the principle of Subsidiarity and giving it as a reason to 'repatriate' powers from Brussels to London. Some people quote subsidiarity as a principle for democracy, with a preference for national or local democracy.

This is a misunderstanding, that much under-rated pope, Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo anno, (79) says:
It [Subsidiarity] is a fundamental principle of social philosophy, fixed and unchangeable, that one should not withdraw from individuals and commit to the community what they can accomplish by their own enterprise and industry. 
Thus it is about personal autonomy and empowerment, and about the respect that is due to the individual and his rights and dignity.

This very Catholic principle of subsidiarity, based on our very Catholic understanding of human nature, which is neither Capitalist or Socialist, just Catholic, is based on the gospel idea of fraternity, and caring for one's neighbour. The loss of it diminishes us.

Taking away autonomy from individuals seems to be one of our major social ills, it is perhaps one of the reasons young people are likely to take to the streets rather than the ballot box or the hustings. Dare I suggest that one of the reasons many British Muslims, who also seemed to vote Brexit, in the Midlands and North East feel alienated and are prone to radicalisation is the lack of subsidiarity.

Dis-empowerment seems to be an important factor in mental and social health of our country, The referendum showed a country divided. There is gulf between the elite and the masses, the powerful and the powerless, the fat-cat banker and the family that queue at the food bank, the comfortably housed and the young couple who will never own a house and can barely afford to rent one, or the parent who has to send their child to a school where he or she will be introduced to a gang sex and drugs culture because they lack the autonomy to escape their environment, or as in the picture the mega-rich Bob Geldorf (and the late Jo Cox) yelling insults at out of work fishermen.

Thursday, June 30, 2016

What has gone wrong. It can be summed up in a word: liberalism


It is the startling descent into misanthropy and insult which hurts most. That moment when Gordon Brown called Gillian Duffy a “bigot” was but a scratching of the surface. The demographic most enthusiastic about voting Leave have been dismissed as racist or xenophobic for years, but it is only in the last few days, following the referendum, that I have seen the very legitimacy of their suffrage questioned – the prosperous, well-educated liberal left, summoning Victorian-era paternalism to question the wisdom of giving votes to the ill-educated. 
Of course, this chasm between party and people is of surprise only to those cloistered away amongst the like-minded. Much has been made of the demographic divide between the two competing mindsets prior to the referendum. But turning this into one-dimensional face-off between the haves and the have-nots presumes an irresolvable conflict. That’s too pessimistic: there is a way out of our current malaise. 
But we first need to understand what has gone wrong. It can be summed up in a word liberalism.
This from a Catholic Herald article by Michael Merrick.

In the Church we have struggled with 'liberalism' for the past couple of hundred years, or more. In the last 50 years it has become the dominant Church culture, and it has been destructive. Merrick argues that the Labour Party's embracing of it has alienated it from its core support, the working class, the same could be said of the Church.

A culture that embraces liberalism, tends to loose clarity, it becomes a culture of semantics, cut of from real life, it is always soft and eventually runs out of momentum, and leads people into a mindless reliance on 'values', 'ethos' and a host meaningless terms. Ultimately it is about babel of meaningless terms where a lack of clarity and confusion are considered the ultimate virtue. This seems to be what is coming from the mouth of the Pope and Rome at the moment, it is becoming pretty obvious it is not just intellectual disability but policy.

Liberalism offers pleasing platitudes to the masses but beyond that it convinces no one. In contemporary politics liberalism leaves us with one great theory: Equality, but when one scratches the surface this is entirely meaningless, it is a word and nothing more, it does nothing to combat poverty, social inertia, the disparity between rich and poor, the hopelessness of many in our society, it certainly doesn't address the simmering resentments, the dis-ease with cultural 'integration'. The accusation against Jeremy Corbyn, that he failed to deliver his party's core constituency members into the 'Remain' camp, seems to be exemplify all that is wrong with contemporary politics: rather than being representational it is ultimately about control. The Labour Party seems incapable of realising that it is out of touch with those who once supported it.

Within the Church we have perhaps lost sight of the fact Catholicism is a  'grassroots' movement, Catholicism is that which is believed always, everywhere and by all, it is not something imposed by a central authority but rather infused by the Holy Spirit. During the Henrician schism it seemed the people held fast to the ancient faith, the Bishops -except for Fisher- abandoned the faith and embraced the pro-divorce, pro-king liberalism of the court, it mirrored much of what had happened during the Arian crisis, it was the Church's leadership, the elite, which embraced the heresy whilst the masses held on to orthodoxy - even if it was with a degree of uncertainty.

The referrendum has revealed a gulf between between the liberal elite and the masses, has not the same thing happened (and is happening) in the Church?


Tuesday, June 28, 2016

What a "hagan lio" we are in



Does anyone else see parallels with Francis and Jeremy Corbyn?

The Holy Father famously suggested to the youth at Rio, "hagan lio", make a mess, we certainly have one in the UK at the moment. Everything seems to be rather messy, poor old Jezzer has massive support in the national Labour Party but hardly any amongst Labours MPs and those who were the members of his shadow cabinet. There is a disconnect between the Leader and activists, between activists and party grassroots members and grassroots members and the country. Despite their inability to support Corbyn, one suspects that many ordinary Labour MPs are disconnected from their local Labour Party. Compare the vote from Labour heartlands in the referendum, massive votes for Brexit and yet most Labour MPs were for 'Remain'.

It is a mess, I suspect that the Conservative Party is not in a very much better position. Will Boris Johnson be able to heal their wounds or will a "Remainer"? And what about the wounds in the Union, what can heal the resentments of the Scots? Within the country divisions and wounds are being openly discussed, the division between young and old, the comfortably off and the poor, the educated and less well educated. London and the rest of the country, the media and the rest of us.

Some of our immigrant families here are feeling very disorientated, there was a vox pop after the Polish Mass here on Sunday. Some of our Poles have been considering moving to Germany for sometime, many here would see themselves as Polish Europeans, with the language skills to work where they choose. What is significant is their discomfort with how the referendum has been interpreted: as a rise in English nationalism. Yet Poland itself has a highly nationalist government.

What Pope Francis' papacy has done is to reveal the divisions in the Church, in the same way the referendum has revealed the divisions in the country. Vladimir Putin used the 'Orthodox narrative' to rebuild Russia after the collapse of Communism. Despite the turmoil in the Church at the moment, our centre of union will always be the person of Jesus Christ, despite the 'great' German theologians who seem to want to separate us from him, in the next Papacy or the one after that, we will return to him. But the UK or even England, what can unite us and what  can unite Europe? Europe was Christian, perhaps today the only marker that does unite it, is its abandonment of Christianity, yet Christianity is, perhaps, its only salvation.

Perhaps there is a wisdom in Francis' thinking that the way forward is to acknowledge our wounds, simply pretending they are not there has no purpose.

Saturday, June 25, 2016

Europe


Europe In normal places most congregations were split at more or less 50% for Brexit, 50% for Remain. In Brighton we seemed to follow, as we do on most issues, the ‘London trend’. Brighton voted remain.

Catholics have always been looked on with a certain suspicion in Britain because it is our nature to look beyond national borders, to not only Europe but to the rest of the world, 'Catholic' means, in its broadest sense, 'Universal'.
In the sixth century the Christianisation of England brought with it union with the Pope, the Bishop of Rome and the then Christian world, not only of Europe, but beyond it. In a sense, the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century brought with it England’s withdrawal from the European Union. The pre-Reformation Church in England was European with at least one Greek Archbishop of Canterbury and most of our clergy were educated in the great universities of the continent.

Even after the Reformation, many Catholics were educated abroad, in Flanders and France, as well as Italy. Catholics had a sense of being not only English or British but also European. Immigration too, not only from Ireland but the rest of Europe, has been a mark of English Catholicism.
Today the vitality of many of our parishes comes from its members who are not just immigrants from Europe but the rest of the world.

The post-war founders of the European Economic Community were more or less a group of Catholic intellectuals (at least three are having their causes explored for Canonisation). The European flag’s twelve gold stars on a blue background is actually a Marian badge. Much of the early legislation of the Community was heavily based on the Catholic Church’s social teaching, in the beginning its leaders were devout Catholics.

One essential understanding they had was one of ‘subsidiarity’, which often appears in documents of the Pope’s, it simply means that power is exercised at its most local level, essentially by the individual, the family or the local community, and central government only comes into play where strictly necessary.

The English Catholic concept of ‘distributionism’ (Belloc, Chesterton etc), which goes back to Pope Leo XIII was very much at the heart of their vision. It said that everyone had a right to enough of a share of wealth and common goods that were necessary for the support of family life and a secure childhood and old age, in sickness and in health. For them excessive wealth in the hands of a few was inimical and contrary to the Gospel.

Pope Francis described today’s Europe as “an elderly, haggard grandmother”, though he stresses the importance ‘unity’ and ‘brotherhood’, the huge numbers of unemployed in many parts of Europe, the gulf between the poor and excessively wealthy, the numbers of homeless and hopeless people, the absence for many of effective justice, is far from the vision of the Catholic founders of the EU.

Pope Benedict spoke of a union that is merely based on ‘wealth creation’ as being bound to failure and ultimate collapse. I am not sure what the future of our country outside of Europe is and neither am I sure what Europe’s future will be. Its failure to have children and the consequence necessity of immigration has made its own future unclear. What I am certain of is the necessity to have truly Catholic voices, familiar with the Gospel and the Church’s teaching in the coming months and years.
Please

Thursday, June 23, 2016

I voted ...



I am not too sure today's referendum is about 'in or out'. It is about trust, do we trust Dave and the stream of his predecessors who have appeared defending Remain or do we trust Boris, Gove and Nige. All of them seem more than dodgy. I don't trust any of them.

There has been talk about 'repatriating democracy'  - in or out that isn't going to happen, our government will not concede greater democracy. Brexit Catholics have been emphasising subsidiarity but again it is highly unlikely that Westminster will concede anything to a strata of government below national level, it is not its nature.

There is a vast gulf between those who govern and those who are governed, whether it is Europe, and it isn't just the British with a problem with Europe, or the US; who could make a choice between Hilary and Trump, there seems to be a vaccum in leadership, a governing class that is concerned only about its maintenance of power.

Our beloved Holy Father has often criticised careerist bishops but the problem in the world is careerist politicians where politicking and the exercise and the maintaining of power itself becomes all consuming. Such leadership hardly evokes trust in those who are led, because of course there is is no vision to which we are led, it is ultimately hopeless.

Today after much pondering I voted to Brexit. I loathe the little England vision of my fellow Brexiteers, and yes I think we are setting off on something unknown. If we go, the result will be revolutionary, I hope there will be a new politics, with new party alignments, I hope there will be more scrutiny of government. I voted 'out' because I am afraid of where Europe will be five or ten years time. From the European press it seems that 'in' Europe the future is as uncertain as 'out'. As someone with a certain anarchist tendency Britain's leaving I hope will encourage European nations will consider leaving too.

For wealthy nations in the North West of Europe I am sure we have become wealthier but as a Catholic there must be more to our lives than the creation of wealth which has been placed increasingly in the hands of the few. Elsewhere in Europe, and yes, beyond its immediate borders poverty and unemployment, the creation of an underclass seem to be part of the European project, it is not good for the future.

Monday, June 20, 2016

Brighton's new attaction


The view from my sitting room window - it is the 'i360', Brighton's latest attraction. The chimney-like structure which has taken over year to erect it now has a shiny glass pod for passengers that will slowly ascends and descend, they have been practising.

Its a grey shiny doughnut that goes up and down a dull grey stick of Brighton rock.

Today through the mist one can look out on grey Brighton to the north and to the south, out at sea, to the wind farm which minces our incoming birds.
Not quite as exciting as the Blackpool Tower, or even Portsmouth's Spinnaker Tower or even Weston's Dismaland - where is Banksy when you need him?
Is it going to be another Brighton bar? Apparently not - you get have to go through airport style security first

Saturday, June 18, 2016

In or Out?

I've been listening to my parishioners ....

.... and I am still undecided

Friday, June 17, 2016

Animal Clergy



With characteristic charm our beloved Holy Father has described priests who refuse to baptise the children of single mothers as 'animals'. I would not refuse baptism for that reason, I do say that I expect to see parents or parent at Mass, that is about the only criteria I ask for.
My friend Fr Alexander Lucie Smith makes the very reasonable point:
By the time the engaged couple present themselves, saying they want to get married in Church, it is already too late to start preparation. Preparation for marriage needs to start before the couple have met; it needs to start in childhood, or even, to be on the safe side, at birth. After all, whom you marry is the most important decision you will ever make.
The problem is that the child of a parent who doesn't practice or live according to the Church's teaching -sometimes actually rejecting large portions of it- is unlikely to practice the faith or live it. Statistics prove that they are themselves unlikely to be able to make a stable marriage themselves, thus in a sense proving the Pope's second point which simply rocks the whole structure of Catholicism, that majority of marriages are invalid.
Perhaps we really do need to be more rigorous in our baptismal preparation. Though we might not decline to baptise, perhaps we should defer it. Perhaps using the baptism of children to encourage parents to marry, to form a stable relationship in which to educate or bring up a child is not such a bad thing.
Maybe the Church, and couples but especially children might be better served by a few animals.

Thursday, May 26, 2016

Expanding Papacy: 2

Image result for popes cartoon

I am sure Archbishop Ganswein used the term 'expanding papacy' to mean simply a changing or developing papacy: de facto the Papacy has changed since the First Vatican Council. De facto Pope Benedict's resignation was the key change. Ganswein describes Benedict as homo historicus, quite what he means I don't know but Benedict has the clarity of vision to see what is likely to happen in the future. I am sure he expected the St Gall mafia's candidate to be elected. I am sure he understood the inevitable confusion that would result. I am sure he would look beyond his papacy to the next and beyond. One of the principles that seems to be at the basis of Benedict's thought is that truth will triumph, because Christ is truth.

Benedict has introduced the idea of a Pope not dying in office, he himself promising obedience retired to a Vatican monastery and has rarely broken his silence. The important question is not what Benedict will do but what would Francis do if retired or was forced from office. Presumably he would not retire to life of prayer but probably become a curate in some poor South American parish, would he remain quiet? It is highly unlikely, and probably impossible for him.

With a chatterbox former-Pope giving daily interviews with Scalfari or some other journalist of choice, or just picking up the phone and sharing his ideas with anyone in the world he wants to - well this produces a very interesting slant on an 'expanded papacy'. Not only will the Cardinals in the future be electing a Pope but also someone who might in just a few years become an ex-Pope.

John Paul set down strict rules about forbidding lobbying amongst Cardinals, human nature would suggest this unreasonable. I am sure wherever two are three Cardinals are gathered, and they have kicked their shoes off they start talking about who is likely to be the next Pope, and who is likely to vote for who. For the good of the Church it would be irresponsible not to do so. In the same way I am sure any conversation between Cardinal is a bit like a job interview - with the under-riding idea of will this man be a suitable next Pope.

I think one of the things that could well develop is a fixed term papacy, an expectation that the Pope will retire after five or six years or when he has reached 80 or 85 he will become a former-Pope. Would it be possible that with two or three pope's emeritus around they develop a particular role, as advisers to the reigning Pope? I rather like the idea of retired Popes Home with popes  in vary states decrepitude eager to advise their successor, whilst they scheme and skype friends in the media, some maybe doing an occasional television interview or 'going viral' on the net.

Wednesday, May 25, 2016

Expanding Papacy

CNA
Archbishop Georg Gänswein’s recent remarks are always interesting, his recent interview is of particular interest. Gänswein, like his master Pope Benedict, is a subtle creature and should not be underestimated. I have always admired Ratzinger, especially as over the years his thought has developed.It is unlikely that Gänswein speaks with out Ratzinger knowing what he will say.

It is fascinating what Gänswein says about the two rival groups before the last Conclave, it is also fascinating what he leaves us to speculate about the election of Pope Francis in the light of these rival factions.

People have been pondering what the Archbishop meant by an 'expanded Papacy'. I think that we need to start with Pope John Paul's Et in Unum Sint  88ff - a document which seems to be as much the work of Cardinal-Prefect Ratzinger, as Pope Wojtyła. It recognises the role of the Pope today. it goes beyond the teaching of Vatican One's Pastor Aeternus, where the Pope is seen as the locus of the authentic Church, and the ultimate judge, or rather definer. of where authentic Christianity ends and heresy begins. It is role well suited to a non-travelling Pope, with a limited staff, whose concern was essentially doctrinal, with a Secretariate of State, whose role was essentially concerned with relationships Catholic princes, and few other Cardinal's with a tiny staff who held particular offices.

Mass communications above all have changed the role of the Papacy, today he is no longer the prisoner of the Vatican. We are more likely to be familiar with the image, actions and words of the Bishop of Rome than we are with our own Bishops. The Pope is no longer 'just for Catholics', he has another role, that of pre-eminence not only among Christians but among 'faith leaders' too. As a 'world leader' he has a moral authority which goes beyond that of any other leader.  He is also the head of one of the largest and most active NGO in the world.

I think Benedict has always wanted to reform the Papacy, it is not unconnected with his attempt to reform the Liturgy. His writings recognise the rootlessness both in scholarship and tradition of Paul VI's liturgical reforms, which rather than being a popular movement was something imposed from above through Papal authority. Vatican II, I am sure he welcomes but he has spoken and written about the Council of the Documents and the Council of Media. He has spoken of course of two hermeneutics, of rupture and continuity. Most especially in regard to the liturgy the Papacy itself has been the source of the hermeneutic of rupture, a rupture in the liturgy would for Benedict be a rupture in the entire fabric of the Church.

My personal feeling is the Archbishop is right that neither Vatileaks or conspiracies were responsible for Benedict's resignation, his devotion to Pope Celestine, his his symbolic leaving of his pallium on his shrine happened as early as April 2009, in retrospect it was an obvious sign of his intention to resign. I am sure his increased tiredness and difficulty in walking hastened it somewhat.

His resignation has changed the Papacy, more than any other event could have done. It has 'de-mystified' it. It has taken away the sense that the Pope is in some sense a sacred person, rather than a human being, brilliant or otherwise, fulfilling a sacred role. It strikes me as being highly unlikely that Pope Benedict was blind and deaf to "the so-called St. Gallen group” that included “Cardinals Danneels, Martini, Silvestrini or Murphy O’Connor”, what is perhaps interesting is that the Archbishop should mention them by name, and it is unlikely that he was unaware of who was their preferred candidate and where he would take the Papacy.

So what are we to make of the idea of an 'expanded' papacy? I cannot help see that it is significant that in the light of Amoris Laetitia and the confusion that it has created that Archbishop Gänswein should point out that the Pope Emeritus is still alive and able to comment, albeit by his choice through the Archbishop. The 'expanded papacy' is presumably a reference to the fact that as long as Benedict is alive Pope Francis has to take his legacy into account. In the past once a Pope was safely in his grave his successor had the freedom to make use of his predecessor's legacy as he wished, this is not an option for Francis. Benedict still has the capacity to cry out from his cloister, as we have seen recently over a misrepresentation of his words about Fatima.

Gänswein, by this speech has rather clearly shown himself to be one of the chief custodians and defenders of the Ratzingarian legacy. It is not by chance that he reminded the world that Ratzinger was elected after his sermon on the evils of Relativism. Perhaps when Pope Benedict is dead we will see what those who keep legacy which has perhaps grown rather and will grow rather than fade, will do and are capable of doing.

Wednesday, May 18, 2016

Vatican II: A Pastoral Council, Hermeneutics of Council Teaching


I am very pleased to hear that Fr Serafino Lanzetta's book on Vatican II has just been published in English, it is the translation of his lectureship thesis presented at Lugano in Switzerland. it has a preface by Bishop Philip Egan.

The book aims at clarifying and indicating a possible hermeneutical principle, leading towards a more faithful reception of the Second Vatican Council, which respects the Council in its precise identity and so gives the conciliar teaching its true place in a revealed and defined structure. Hopefully this historical and theological research, involving numerous archive documents, might help looking at Vatican II as a way which will foster unity within the Church.

Sunday, May 15, 2016

Diminution of the Holy Sprit


A thought for discussion:
A real reading of Vatican I gives us a rather beautiful understanding of the role the Pope, it is moderate, it is far from the idea of secular leaders of the 19th or 20th centuries or even our current age, it places the Pope as the servant of the Church, and yet its interpretation, the Spirit of VI produced some of the most inflated, aggrandised Popes ever. Popes who on a whim chose to abolish centuries old Tradition, Popes who saw themselves as innovators, rather than faithful servants who passed on intact what they themselves had received.
Whilst this going on there is a movement which at least has the appearance of being against, or to diminish the Holy Spirit, first of all Pius XII abolished the ancient Vigil of Pentecost and Paul VI abolished the Octave of Pentecost. Presumably this was done so as not to overshadow Pius XII's reform of Easter and Holy Week, but I can't help thinking it gave an imbalance to our understanding of the Holy Spirit and therefore our theology as whole.

Paul VI introduces oriental epliclesis into the Rite of Mass - Fr Hunwick has pointed out that in the ancient Eucharistic prayer of the West, the Roman Canon preserves within it a theology of God which is pre-Nicean, the point of being in the Eucharist, at least, almost binaterian . The Eucharist is confected by the Church through the priest offering bread and wine to the Father and he in turn giving us his Son. It is an exchange of gifts and there is no mention of the Holy Spirit in the Eucharistic Prayer, apart from the present doxology at its end. In the East Eucharistic prayers, and the novelty Eucharistic Prayers introduced by Paul VI all, except the earliest, have a calling down of the Spirit.

What has happened is an abandonment in the post-VII of a very Western understanding of God - I wonder if the disorientation this caused has resulted in the rise of the Charismatic movement, a movement where the saving death of Christ is often replaced by a personal, ecstatic or emotional experience of the Spirit. Our Western understanding seems to be that the Holy Spirit is the unseen agent of Holiness, drawing us gradually into a deeper communion with the Father and the Son, within the Church. He is unseen but he is experienced. I think this was very much the understanding prior to Nicea and the later Christological Councils.

What I fear it has brought with it is a sense that the Holy rather than 'welling up' and being 'within' is something which comes down from above. In the day to day experience of Christians it is something from outside. There is a connection here between S Vincent of Lerins, understanding of Catholicism as quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est - everwhere, always and by all believed - to what the modern neo-Con might believe, which put crudely, is Catholicism is that which the Pope believes and it is imposed from above on those below. It is the most hideous Ultramontane distortion of the faith, and I suspect it relies on a distortion of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Yet it does seem that from VII onwards the role of the Holy Spirit is greatly diminished whilst the significance of the Papacy increases, these two things are surely not unconnected.

Saturday, May 14, 2016

Come Holy Ghost

Octave of Pentecost – I have always regretted that Pope Paul VI abolished the Octave of Pentecost in the Ordinary Form of Mass, This year, in our Ordo, there are no feasts during the coming week, so I shall offer  votive Masses of the Holy Spirit throughout the coming week, remembering most especially the Vicar of Christ, and safety of the Church in her mission to teach, with clarity, the nations.
Join me in this petition.

Monday, May 09, 2016

A New Oratory in Bournemouth


It seems as though England is going to have yet another Oratory, this time in Bournemouth, yes another pastoral initiative in the diocese of Portsmouth
From the parish website - A new Oratory in-formation is being inaugurated at Sacred Heart Church in Bournemouth on the 8th of September of this year (2016).
Bishop Philip Egan of Portsmouth has invited Fr Dominic Jacob CO (co-founder of the Oxford Oratory) and Fr Peter Edwards and Fr David Hutton, generously released by the Archbishop of Southwark for this project, to begin an Oratorian Community of St Philip Neri as part of a major evangelisation drive for the diocese.
Fr Peter, Fr Dominic and Fr David will begin their ministry on the feast of Our Lady’s Birthday, at the church which is situated in the heart of Bournemouth, surrounded by students living in university accommodation, many international language schools, diverse ethnic communities, and the homelessness, beside long-standing residents, all within an active town center known its hospitality industry, business and commerce.
In accordance with the charism of their Patron, St Philip Neri, the Oratory in-formation will be devoted to offering sacramental support through daily Mass and confessions, Eucharistic Adoration and formation in the spiritual life, alongside pastoral care of students, the growing number of homeless, others in need, all who make up the local population, and the thousands who pass the doors of Sacred Heart each year.
Bishop Philip Egan of Portsmouth states: “The Diocese has areas of real deprivation and poverty. There are immigrants and foreign nationals from Eastern Europe and overseas, as well as university and college students living far away from home. This is a pastoral situation that is urgent. It impels action.”
Bishop Philip goes on to say, “We need to engage with those who have not yet met the Lord Jesus in Person nor taken to heart the salvation and eternal life He offers. More than ever we need today to be confident and clear in witnessing to the Person of Jesus Christ and the truths of the Catholic faith, in order to help people find the Way to authentic humanism and happiness. This is why I am delighted by this new project beginning at Sacred Heart parish.”
St Philip Neri, Apostle of Rome and Saint of Joy, continues to inspire secular priests today to form communities, without vows, living together in the bond of charity, with the Oratorian charism of prayer, preaching and celebration of the Sacraments, not least in the confessional.
St Philip’s primary apostolate of forming young people in the life of prayer and pastoral care, particularly for the sick and needy, also attracts many by excellence in liturgy and music, through catechesis, and in the New Evangelization through culture and the arts.
This latest Community of St Philip Neri is a Society of Apostolic Life under the direction of the Oratorian Confederation’s Procurator General in Rome for whom the Oxford Oratory and York Oratory-in-Formation have been the formative inspiration.
More information about the Oratory-in-Formation for Sacred Heart Church will be forthcoming in the parish newsletter and on the parish website.
Parishioners and friends of Sacred Heart church are asked to please keep Fr Peter, Fr Dominic and Fr David in their prayers as they prepare for this wonderful apostolate.