O'Toole to Plymouth and Burke as VG in Edinburgh

Everyone has been taken up with the excellent news that Mgr Mark O'Toole has been appointed as Bishop of Plymouth they have overlooked the fact that it seems the extremely able Mgr Patrick Burke at present at CDF is returning to these islands to become Archbishop Cushley's Vicar General in his own diocese of Edinburgh and St Andrews. Obviously his talents are going to be used to heal and cleanse after the Cardinal O'Brien fiasco but it also means that he will be able to use his considerable talents to address other issues in Britain.
Mgr Burke was a key figure working discreetly behind the scenes with the former Anglican bishops and Pope Benedict to set up the Ordinariate. He was the editor 'Faith Magazine". He is a committed evangelist and as can be seen from the video doesn't put up with nonsense.

My congratulations to both Mgr O'Toole and Burke on their new crosses and my congratulations to the two dioceses on their good fortune too.

Pope's Iron Fist defining the Peripheries?

I was disconcerted by Pope Francis, now I am beginning to thing that maybe, just maybe, he might be an iron fist in a velvet glove. For many of us Abp Mueller's clarification on the issue of divorced remarried receiving Holy Communion became a turning point, it seemed to be an illustration of how a future Vatican might work: the Pope speaks in rather imprecise terms, tells us to go to the 'peripheries', then one of his staff tells us precisely where those 'peripheries' are.

The role of the Pope is above all one of gathering, unifying, being a (holy) 'father' to all, being 'pastoral', it is his role to present the loving face of the Church, to say 'yes' rather than 'no', to present mercy and forgiveness. I have to admit I still find his raising of questions and not supplying answers still disconcerting, Jesuitical, it is not what any Pope has done in the past but Jesus raised question and rarely supplied clear answers, 'he spoke to them in parables', making people go away and think. It is the Apostles who clarify what Jesus taught, the Gospels alone, without the Epistles and the vast corpus of the writings of the Fathers, do not make sense.

Francis speaks of 'the devil' without going into much detail but the mere mention of the devil raises the whole question of hell and the division of mankind into those who are faithful and destined for salvation and those who are not. He speaks of God's 'mercy', with its implication of the necessity of being in the Church and receiving the sacraments. Others are left to speak of the limits, 'the peripheries', of that mercy. Yet even in Francis' teaching this mercy he is highly critical, it is not accepting of careerist clergy for example, or of even more esoteric and so far unidentified groups such as 'Pelagians' or 'specialist of the Logos', or a dozen or so other categories that have received the sharp edge of Francis tongue.

Mueller's document on the 'peripheries' of marriage, probably would have been written under Ratzinger's Prefecture but probably not under Levada's. After his meeting with the Latin American and Caribbean Confederation of Religious Men and Women - Confederación Latinoamericana y Caribeña de Religiosos y Religiosas - might have suggested side lining of the CDF but evidently this is not happening, the CDF is becoming a major player, even if it serves to clarify what Francis is saying, it would be absurd not to believe it acts at the Pope's behest.

The iron fist of the CDF has reappeared again with the publication in the US of the letter concerning Medjugorje, that directs that bishops are advised that, “clerics and the faithful are not permitted to participate in meetings, conferences or public celebrations during which the credibility of such ‘apparitions’ would be taken for granted.” We all knew that but still those so inclined just ignored the ruling. Now, Rome seems to be insistent that they actually obey.

I have been struggling to fill in the questionnaire for the Synod on the family, I almost agree with Joseph Shaw that it is the worst survey in the world but then I suspect that the answers, despite what the media say. are not that important, this seems to be a questionnaire that is really meant to teach, a sort of overview of what should have been happening. The important thing is that the peripheries are again being defined; bishops are being told that they ought to have been teaching on the Catholic understanding of family and marriage, on the natural law, on why cohabitation, extra-marital sex are bad. In England and Wales our battle against the redefinition went off like a damp squib precisely because practical nothing has been done by our bishops to teach about family and marriage over the years. Humanae Vitae and so many other documents on the family and sexuality have been treated as an embarrassment. The questionnaire hammers home how ineffectual most pastors have been on these issues.

Marching up and down

A priest friend of mine suggests most priests are somewhere on the autistic spectrum, most of us are fairly 'functioning' but really we share a great number of autistic characteristics. He suggests that most of us tend to see things in black and white - maybe with a few shades of grey, that we tend to enjoy repetitive regime and shy away from the spontaneous, that we are not good at multi-tasking, that we tend to resent change, that we tend to be 'intellectual' rather than 'feeling', that we prefer to monologue rather than dialogue.
I must admit I have been inclined to agree with him, or simply to admit that living on one's own as a celibate, without a wife and family there is no-one to challenge one's behaviour and the nature of priesthood encourages introspection and solitude.

I was talking to a recently retired army officer about this recently, he was talking about marriage break up amongst the young officers he was training, what I described as some of the character traits of a celibate priest he saw as being present in army officers and soldiers generally adding, 'that is why they actually like marching up and down or a barracks full of correctly laid out kit'. Last night he phoned me to say he been talking to his brother a lawyer about our conversation, he recognised these things are present amongst male lawyers too, 'especially the bit about things being black and white, legal or illegal, some lawyers have an obsession with the abstract conception of truth'.

Talking to one of my parishioners who has been suffering with a long term minor illness, which causes him irritation rather than pain, I urge him to go to the doctor, he has been refusing, the bottom line seems to be that he can't be bothered with the 'fuss' of getting a doctor, making an appointment, talking about his lifestyle etc., I think my priest friend might suggest this was autistic behaviour. Thinking about it, it seems to be pretty characteristic of so many of the men who are homeless, for many there is help but they simply can't get it together to jump through the various hoops to get it.

One of my concerns in Brighton is the high rate of young men who commit suicide, without statistics to prove anything, just the accounts of family and friends, young men tend to kill themselves without discussing it whilst women tend to self harm are willing to get counselling or some kind of help. Invariably friends and family have said that they didn't think anything was seriously wrong when a young man is found dead but then men even if they have fallen apart inside tend to wash their faces brush their hair and carry on regardless until they can't any more.

Psychologists suggest that young men tend to be more prone to taking risks, I don't see that many young women skateboarding in the traffic on Brighton's main roads. We are attracted to danger, to risk, to the big idea. What I am trying to say is that what my priest friend describes as 'autistic' is actually just being a man. It is significant that what he regards it as being aberrant and he is not alone many educationalists, counsellors or psychologists would agree with him. Men like things simple and clear, we like things ordered and disciplined, we respond well to risk, complexity and subtlety tend to scare us.


I think that this is why the Traditional Mass and Traditional Catholicism appeal to men, it is not touchy feely, it involves discipline order, I say that as an aside, what I find concerning is that as society becomes more complex and there are more hoops to jump through more and more young men will find difficulty in coping.

Implications of 'Mercy'

I am sure I am alone but Pope Francis high profiling of  'mercy' has caused me to think about my own being merciful and the extent of God's mercy. It is infinite but it is not unconditional, if we accept his mercy then heaven is ours. That has been the extent of much of our preaching for the last few years, except of course we have not not used the word 'mercy', we have spoken just of 'love'. 'Mercy' is different, God's 'love' tends to be interpreted through a rather human lens, we are familiar with love, we see it in our own relationships or yearn for it in our hearts. When we think of God's love we tend to empty God of his divinity, we are no longer able to distinguish or understand the of a superior for an inferior, the difference in the love of a Father for a child, or of a Lord for his people.

Love tends to suggest something between equals, mercy however is something given by someone who is powerful to someone who acknowledges their weakness. Love which more often than not tends to be seen in passive terms - as a state of being, mercy however is about inequality, it is something which is given but may be withheld.

Asking for mercy is risky, it involves the risk of rejection, it involves a response from the supplicant, 'if you show me mercy then I will ...'. Mercy has consequences, either we accept it and change or we live without and that has consequences too.

It is interesting that Pope Francis rarely speaks of God's love. Mercy implies an offence, a need for forgiveness, an escape from the consequences of not accepting that 'mercy'. The other thing Francis speaks of, though generally separately from mercy is 'the devil'.  For Christians the non acceptance of God's mercy hell.

One of my parishioners sent me a link to this article, 'Why are we so afraid of Hell' in which the author says:

As I’ve taught classes and given talks on the “New Evangelization,” I’ve been struck at how both Jesus and the apostles make a regular part of their message not only the positive proclamation of the Good News that Christ has, by his sacrifice, won redemption for the whole world, but also the terrible consequences of neglecting such an offer: namely, hell.

Any talk of 'mercy' in a Christian context implies that the failure to accept God's mercy are pretty dire. Speaking of 'love' with its present 'hippy' ramifications makes 'hell' the four letter word which causes most preachers to do more than hesitate.

I have resolved to try and not talk about God's 'love' but to speak of his 'mercy', I suspect Francis has made the same resolution, whether he will start using the 'four letter word' as often he uses 'mercy', I doubt it, the media are too likely to supply image from some horror film but the implications are pretty obvious.

God's Love

I rather like Eckhart's, "If we say man is 'good', then we must say God is 'not good', if we say God is 'good' then we cannot say man is 'good'. There is always a danger of making God in our own image and likeness, of seeing him as just a super human being or making him into a golden calf.
There some modern fallacies about God which seem more the construction of a 'valueless' society than Christian Revelation.

God's love is infinite but what it certainly isn't is "unconditional".

God is long suffering but he is not tolerant.

God is merciful but he is also just.

The End of Christianity

I was a bit disappointed by attendance at Mass this morning, Saturday is not normally that good but I thought for the Holy Souls it might be better.
It strikes me there is a lot of confusion about our end, and consequently about the 'ends' of the Church and of Jesus Christ himself. What I mean is simply; why did Jesus come, what did he achieve? His Death and Resurrection according to survey after survey are a source of confusion. One well known Prelate who writes regularly for a Catholic newspaper seems to deny the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ without correction from any Bishop. It is is a not uncommon minimisation of what scripture and Tradition reveals. So many organisation within the Church seem more concerned with changing Church structures, discipline and doctrine. The Vatican Council above all was concerned about the return to kerygma, the central proclamation of Christianity: that Christ has come to Redeem us (see 1 Corintians 15 below). Christianity is about redemption and salvation above all. If we fail to see that then the Church really has no purpose, and we are left directionless as Christians.
Christ's death and resurrection opens Heaven for us, it is an act by God of recreation, it is essential that we understand it in the way it is presented in Revelation together with the subsequent doctrines of Judgement, Heaven and Hell, the Communion of Saints etc. To minimise or to substitute that for some modern speculative theology, for example Fr Robert Baron's 'hell exists but it could be empty', or Chardin's 'cosmic Christ' or Rhanner's 'anonymous Christians' does serious damage to Christianity at its very core.  Ultimate what is being said is Christ has done nothing and he and his mission are unimportant.

" I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." If we loose sight of that we lose sight of everything.

[1] Now I make known unto you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you have received, and wherein you stand; [2] By which also you are saved, if you hold fast after what manner I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain. [3] For I delivered unto you first of all, which I also received: how that Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures: [4] And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day, according to the scriptures: [5] And that he was seen by Cephas; and after that by the eleven.
[6] Then he was seen by more than five hundred brethren at once: of whom many remain until this present, and some are fallen asleep. [7] After that, he was seen by James, then by all the apostles. [8] And last of all, he was seen also by me, as by one born out of due time. [9] For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. [10] But by the grace of God, I am what I am; and his grace in me hath not been void, but I have laboured more abundantly than all they: yet not I, but the grace of God with me.
[11] For whether I, or they, so we preach, and so you have believed. [12] Now if Christ be preached, that he arose again from the dead, how do some among you say, that there is no resurrection of the dead? [13] But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen again. [14] And if Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. [15] Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God: because we have given testimony against God, that he hath raised up Christ; whom he hath not raised up, if the dead rise not again.
[16] For if the dead rise not again, neither is Christ risen again. [17] And if Christ be not risen again, your faith is vain, for you are yet in your sins. [18] Then they also that are fallen asleep in Christ, are perished. [19] If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. [20] But now Christ is risen from the dead, the firstfruits of them that sleep:
[21] For by a man came death, and by a man the resurrection of the dead. [22] And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.

Pope's new "Resurrexifix"

Pope Francis has a new ferula according to Rorate, it was donated to the Pope last month by Goldlake, a mining corporation that is part of major Italian cement holding Gruppo Financo, with mining concessions in Argentina and Honduras (from which came the metals used for this staff).

Personally, I preferred the one he used at Lampedusa, there is something about using the image of Christ as an ornament which is not quite Catholic. I know I'm just an ol' liberal who thinks at Mass there should be just one image of Christ rather than a multiplicity, and then there is the question of the theology pf the image of the risen Christ super-imposed on the Cross, to say nothing of morality of Gruppo Financo and Goldlake. With Francis too there is the question of 'bling'.