Media Is Baffled

I note with interest the surprise some in the media are expressing with what seems to be Pope Francis's rejection of France's candidate as ambassador to the Holy See. The candidate, Laurent Stefanini, the media maintain, is openly homosexual, although other sources deny it, the man seems to have backing from some solid people in France. We don't know. However, the media reaction is telling. The Telegraph has an interesting article informing us that Francis's reputation as a liberal is now taking a hitting because of this supposed move. The journalist here, Henry Samuel quotes - or more correctly misquotes Francis's "Who Am I To Judge" remark, and wondered what has happened.

Well, actually, nothing has happened. You see, if the media had reported that remark as it was made and not according to their own agenda they would not be confused now. Francis said that if a gay person was living a good life, following the Gospel and nurturing a relationship with God, then who was he to judge them. And that is orthodox, old fashioned Catholic teaching. If someone adheres to the moral law laid down by Christ, regardless of their sexuality, living it and seeking holiness, then there is no issue. The Church does not condemn a person for their sexuality, but rather counsels us all to use our sexuality in accordance with the moral law (though it may be more difficult for some than others - sacramental grace is there to help those who have a hard struggle) . 

This is what Francis meant, but it is not what the media reported. It reminds me of the story of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery, a story usually half-told. Jesus does not condemn the woman - he will not kill her for her sin because he is the one who will die for it. However before he lets her go he says, "Go, and sin no more"; this last bit is usually omitted and then leads to the error, propagated by some, that Jesus does not judge our sins.

As for this story, there are lots of unknowns, so caution.

Has Heaven Gone To The Dogs?

Well that's a question people have been asking all week as the media have been reporting that Pope Francis said that pets go to heaven.  But, with a few days to let it sink it and some people actually parsing what the Pope said, it seems he didn't say that at all but it was Blessed Paul VI, or did he? It was St Paul, or did he? That's where we are at the moment. The media are gradually waking up to what was not said, or are they? Business as usual it seems.  

So the moral of the lesson: media - check your facts, double check them, as the old hacks used to do in the old days when objectivity and accurate reporting were the aims of the media. Faithful: take everything reported about this pope with a hefty dose of salt and hold fire, and say a prayer for him. 

One interesting response to the story has come from Fr Z: if pets can go to heaven, there is also the chance that they may go to hell too. PETA won't be happy to hear that. Fr Z also reminds us of the teaching of St Thomas Aquinas in this regard: animals do have souls, but they are different to our immortal souls: animals have sentient souls, humans have intellective souls, so when the animal's body dies, so too its soul, they are not subsistent.

There's a great way to start a week: parsing Aquinas.

So It Begins...

The Synod on the Family has begun in Rome. After a vigil on Saturday evening, the Pope celebrated Mass yesterday, and this morning the first plenary session began with an invocation of the Holy Spirit. We must keep the proceedings in our prayers.

As expected there has been a great deal of coverage by the media.  I was watching the Irish media and the BBC to see what they would say. They rehashed the usual commentary on Pope Francis, selectively quoted from his homily and tweaked what he said in order to give viewers/listeners the impression that he is going to use this Synod to change Church teaching on same sex marriage, contraception, divorce etc.  So the narrative has been laid out.  We must be very careful when it comes to media reports. At this stage my attitude to the mainstream media is a hermeneutic of suspicion; not always because journalists are being mischievous or malicious in their reporting, but because a lot of the time they are just ignorant of the Church, her teachings, her systems and her intentions, So take care. Rely on Catholic media, but then again be careful there too.

The Synod is a wonderful opportunity for the Church to look again at her mission to the family, and to iterate the importance of marriage and the family in the Church. There is so much for the Council Fathers to draw upon as they seek to find new ways of proclaiming the Gospel to the family while reflecting on challenges to marriage and family life. This is the first Synod on these themes since St John Paul developed his theology of the body, and that holds many treasures which should really be explored in the deliberations. I know Pope Francis has said that the Synod is not to be the place for rarefied theologising (my phrase), but theology cannot be excluded since its purpose is to understand in a deeper way what our faith is and help us to live it in our time. 

The Pope has said that the Synod must seek to do what God wants, so that means human expectations must be grounded in Christ's teaching, and if the synod wishes to be faithful to Christ then the expected abandoning of Christian teaching on marriage should not be on the agenda. That said, listening to the media and commentators I fear unchristian expectations are growing and being nurtured.

Of course we shouldn't be surprised at this. There is little doubt that marriage and the family is now the front-line in the war between the secular world and Christianity. Marriage and family life are ultimately a threat to the progress of the secularist agenda. As the domestic Church, as the place where values are passed on, ideologues have always tried to demolish the family so to form the next generation themselves. The Church has always resisted this and its main form of opposition was to nurture good Christian marriage - virtuous parents who raised their children in love and virtue. This sticks in the throat of ideologues for whom the exclusive nature of the family not only offends their permissive agenda but serves as a wall, a filter, through which their ideas must fight to penetrate.

I do believe this Synod has become a trophy for the secularists within the Church, for many of them it is their last chance to force through their agenda as old age is catching up with them.  They have managed to create enormous expectations and I fear that we may well be facing a repeat of 1968 with similar results. As with Pope Paul VI on contraception, Francis cannot jettison Christ's teaching to satisfy those who no longer want to live it; even if he wants to do it for mercy's sake, as some maintain, he will be prevented, not by conservative cardinals as some liberals have suggested, but by God himself who made the law and proclaimed it in the Gospel. Like the tenants in the vineyard in yesterday's Gospel - we have no right to usurp what is not ours: it is God's Church, his law, his Gospel, his way not ours. Re-imagining a more liberal, permissive Jesus who renounces his own moral teachings in order to fit in with an unbelieving generation is an exercise in fantasy, one which will ultimately lead to disappointment and, even worse, misleading souls.

I am heartened by the first reading from the Mass this morning, from St Paul's Letter to the Galatians (1:6-12). I wonder if the Synod Fathers took it as a message for how the Synod should proceed. Here it is for your meditation:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ. I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

The "One In Fifty" Interview

I'm not going to comment on the latest Papal "interview" fiasco. At this stage I don't know what's going on. This evening at the weekly prayer group I minister to there was a lot of confusion and upset among good people, and these people have to be cared for, led and guided. I advised them to keep praying - putting their trust in the Lord Jesus, reading their Scripture and Catechism, and to follow the example of the Saints. And to pray for the Pope. As a priest I have my own views and disappointments, and today life was a little harder than usual. But ultimately, God is in charge, so such times are opportunities to pray for and nurture faith, hope and charity.

Is Church History About To Repeat Itself?

A friend sent me an email recently in which he wondered if Pope Francis will face a "Humanae Vitae moment" at the Synod on the family next October. The substance of his reflection is that the Pope will be unable to satisfy the demands of the German bishops, the media and liberal Catholics and permit the admission of divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to the Eucharist, and this will lead to a situation for Francis which will mirror that faced by the Venerable Paul VI in 1968 following his refusal to endorse the use of artificial contraception. This has been suggested by a few people in the past couple of weeks. 

I have been thinking about this for the last while, and reflecting on it with some theologian friends, and I think it is possible that this might actually happen. Ultimately it will depend on how Francis deals with the situation, but I have to admit the Holy Father is being pushed further and further into a corner by growing expectations.  

Let's explore this for a moment. We are all aware of the media hype that surrounds the Holy Father. Okay, we can put to one side for a moment his ambiguity, his lack of theological precision and the now growing need for Fr Lombardi or other Vatican officials to clarify points made by the Pope due to his spontaneous utterances. The Holy Father's style is different from John Paul's and Benedict's - he is more free and ambiguous in his speech and I think we'll just have to get used to this for this Pontificate (although rumours have it a senior ranking Churchman has taken the Pope to one side and has had a "chat" with him on this ambiguity so we might see a change there - might). But all that said, I do not doubt his orthodoxy.  

However the media and liberals have been engaged in creating a virtual Francis, one who eschews doctrine and wants to demolish the Church and rebuild it as a more liberal organisation founded on the shifting sands of relativism and human emotions. At the moment it can be hard to distinguish between Francis and the virtual Francis because the secular media control most of the airwaves and Francis's free ways do not help matters. As we have seen here in Ireland with the recent abortion issue, the media set the agenda and can actually push public representatives and even the electorate in a particular direction - one which favours their point of view and political persuasion. Such is the power of the image and careful control of reporting and opinion. In a similar way, the media are presenting the virtual Francis as the reality and selectively reporting on what he says so as to lead the public to accept their man as the real man.

In this context, then, it may well be that the media and liberals will be attempting to use their power to push various issues in a particular direction. They may well be naïve enough to think that Francis will go in that direction (but he is, as we all know now, his own man), and so they are sowing expectations that Church teaching on marriage and the Eucharist may well be changed "for pastoral reasons". There are those in the Church who seem to think this as many pastors have already allowed divorced and civilly remarried couples receive Holy Communion in anticipation of the Pope changing the rule. This is very much like the situation in the 1960s with regard to contraception - many bishops and priests were then advising Catholics to use contraception because they believed Pope Paul was going to permit it.  

But will Francis change the rule? I do not think he will, not because he won't but, as I said before, because he can't. Even though it is a personal and painful issue for many, it is at its core an issue of the moral law. I have no doubt that Francis realises this and knows that to change the rule is to admit that adultery is no longer a grave sin, and such a change will undermine the nature of Christian marriage and lead the faithful into error, something as Pope he cannot do. There is much to be done on this painful issue, and the synod will reflect on what possibilities lie before us - one of which is a reconsideration of the annulment process and perhaps even the issue of canonical form as suggested by Ed Peters in a recent article. Such a synod is long overdue and, given the challenges to marriage, it is necessary. 

I hope Pope Francis is also aware that to change the rule will have other consequences with regard to marriage: this is not just about the divorced and civilly remarried receiving Communion - it is about the nature of marriage. We had a similar situation in 1968: Pope Paul realised that contraception was broader than controlling fertility in the short term, but rather an issue of life, marriage and the family. Paul prophetically understood that contraception would led to the undermining of respect for life because it placed life under the control of human beings and left it up to them to decide whether life begins or not, and, as we have seen, if life has begun whether it will be allowed continue or not. Rendering the sexual act barren through artificial means would also lead to other problematic issues regarding the integrity of the human person and the family. 

So too with this issue on marriage. To change the rule would undermine sacramental marriage and endorse situations in which Catholic marriage can be put to one side and other unions legitimised. Remember receiving Communion is not just a personal act, it is an ecclesial act: admitting those in what are seen as irregular unions under the moral law to the Eucharist will be seen to legitimise those unions. This will have many consequences. For one it will open the door to a form of legitimising same sex unions: how could the Church refuse the Eucharist to those in a same sex union when it allows it for the divorced and civilly remarried? To be consistent, she can't: she will have already undermined and put aside the moral law. 

If the Pope were to grant the German bishops what they want, he would leave the decision about the validity of a sacramental marriage to the subjective opinion of the spouses. This too would have serious consequences for marriage and for women in particular - what is stopping a man who is tired of his wife to decide in his heart of hearts that the marriage was not valid and so put her to one side with the, albeit reluctant, approval of the Church? An English king tried to do that once.

We may well be facing another troublesome period in the Church, not quite unchartered waters, but stormy ones, and the now popular Francis may well suddenly find himself presiding over another period of defections, and this will be painful for him and for all of us. It will, I suppose, depend on how the media and liberals want to proceed - will they ignore the Post-Synodal Exhortation and continue to mislead, or will they decide the decision is too obvious to ignore and turn on Francis? I do not know, it's all in the air. But one thing I do know: we need to pray for the Holy Father, and pray hard: first that he will do the right thing, and then that God will sustain him as what may be a very difficult cross will be laid on his shoulders - one which may well kill him in the end, as Paul VI's did.

Perhaps we might commend him to the care and intercession of the Venerable Paul VI.

Another One....

 

The Pope has given another interview.  I got a text from a friend of mine telling me about it and I could hear the remorseless groan wafting through cyberspace or whatever that thing is that sends texts flying around the world.  But  no need to groan, this is a welcome interview conducted by the reliable Andrea Tornelli, and in it the Holy Father clarifies a number of issues - clarifications which are badly needed and may knock down some resistance to him.

 

Here is the text of the interview.  Of all the commentators I direct you to Jimmy Aiken who provides a brief and clear summary of the main controversial issues. 

 

But in brief:

 

The Pope is not a Marxist, and he believes Marxism is wrong.  Note that he does not say that Marxism is misguided or erroneous: he does not offer a brief rebuttal of Marxist theory, he uses a word that not only says it is incorrect, but also makes a moral judgment of the system.  But, as always, he sees the human beings in the midst of it and he makes a distinction between Marxism and those who follow it, and sees that they can be good people.

 

The Pope is not going to make women cardinals.  That, he said, would be a clericalization of the laity and the clericalization of women.  I hear an echo of Blessed John Paul II's writings on the laity and on women in particular in which he acknowledged the unique and venerable role of the laity: clericalizing the laity is ultimately a denial of the lay state and its place in the mission of the Church.  The way forward is to see how the laity may be incorporated more into the mission of the Church without making them faux-clerics.  Of course I'm not sure if people are aware of this or not, but this will mean a lot more work being put on the shoulders of the laity and that will effect personal and family time.  At the end of the day the mission of the Church is not about power, it is about service, and those who want a greater role in the life of the Church had better get ready to abandon themselves to a greater service: believe me, I know!  And the reality of a life of service is not about self-affirmation and self-fulfilment, it about self-denial and sacrifice - lots of sacrifices.  And perhaps, as the laity take up a greater share of the work it may eventually be seen why God calls certain individuals to a celibate life of total service with no other obligations or responsibilities other than complete availability to service in the Church (with little or no pay!). 

 

It seems the Pope is not in favour of the German bishops's plans to give Communion to the divorced and civilly remarried.  Or at least that is what I discern from his comments on the issue. Francis says clearly: "The exclusion of divorced people who contract a second marriage from communion is not a sanction": it not a punishment imposed by the Church, rather, as Jimmy Aiken correctly points out: "The exclusion is caused by the fact that people who are civilly remarried are not validly married in the eyes of the Church...As a result, unless they are living as brother and sister, they are committing grave sexual sin and it is the grave sexual sin that creates the barrier to receiving Holy Communion."   As I said before, it is a moral issue and the Pope cannot (cannot not won't) change the moral law.  It does not mean we are not to be compassionate or exclude people in these unions from the life of the Church, no, but there is a problem that excludes them from full sacramental participation and that element of exclusion will remain until the problem is resolved.

 

Those issues aside, there is some lovely stuff in the interview, including his reflection on Christmas which I think is worth quoting:

For me Christmas is hope and tenderness...

It is the encounter Jesus. God has always sought out his people, led them, looked after them and promised to be always be close to them. The Book of Deuteronomy says that God walks with us; he takes us by the hand like a father does with his child. This is a beautiful thing. Christmas is God’s meeting with his people. It is also a consolation, a mystery of consolation. Many times after the midnight mass I have spent an hour or so alone in the chapel before celebrating the dawn mass. I experienced a profound feeling of consolation and peace. I remember one night of prayer after a mass in the Astalli residence for refugees in Rome, it was Christmas 1974 I think. For me Christmas has always been about this; contemplating the visit of God to his people.

It speaks of tenderness and hope. When God meets us he tells us two things. The first thing he says is: have hope. God always opens doors, he never closes them. He is the father who opens doors for us. The second thing he says is: don’t be afraid of tenderness. When Christians forget about hope and tenderness they become a cold Church, that loses its sense of direction and is held back by ideologies and worldly attitudes, whereas God’s simplicity tells you: go forward, I am a Father who caresses you. I become fearful when Christians lose hope and the ability to embrace and extend a loving caress to others. Maybe this is why, looking towards the future, I often speak about children and the elderly, about the most defenceless that is. Throughout my life as a priest, going to the parish, I have always sought to transmit this tenderness, particularly to children and the elderly. It does me good and it makes me think of the tenderness God has towards us.

Now that is lovely.  I note the scud against ideology and worldly values.  I think Francis wants all of us see ourselves as the salt of the earth and light of the world, a people who are different, a people who challenge the world through holy lives.  That may well be the key to our survival as Western civilisation collapses under the weight of decadence and greed.

 

And on another issue: Pope Francis is urging greater adherence to the Sacrament of Confession.  He is asking his curial staff to spend time in the confessional in the Church of Santo Spirito in Sassia, the Divine Mercy Church in Rome.  And if he wants more priests hearing confession he certainly wants more Catholics coming to the Sacrament.  I hope all his liberal fans will heed that call.  Let's hope that his admirers in the media will be forming an appropriately repentant queue (with the rest of us!)at the nearest confessional very soon.  I would be more than happy to make myself available to shrive the denizens of RTE and the Irish Times in time for Christmas.  We'll see how the new papalists respond to that invitation!

The Evening News

A couple of pieces for you this evening.  First an article on Pope Francis and the media on the Aleteia blog.  According to Russell Shaw the media are actually quite accurate in reporting what Pope Francis says, some simplification aside, it seems, they are not missing the point.   Shaw tells us that we in the Church are in for an exciting ride.  I just hope the heart can take it!

 

Secondly, the CDF has issued a document on the matter of divorced and remarried Catholics, essentially reiterating the Church's position (Catholic Herald reports here). The document can be downloaded here.   It seems the Prefect of CDF, Archbishop Muller, is attempting to stave off undue expectation that Pope Francis will change the Church's teaching on who can receive the Eucharist.  Archbishop Muller points out that "An objectively false appeal to mercy...runs the risk of trivialising the image of God, by implying that God cannot do other than forgive".  “The mystery of God" he continues, "includes not only his mercy but also his holiness and his justice. If one were to suppress these characteristics of God and refuse to take sin seriously, ultimately it would not even be possible to bring God’s mercy to man.”  This is an important point: the mercy of God is deep but not limitless - there is a limit and that limit is that line drawn in the sand by lack of repentance - a limit set, not by God, but by those who refuse to repent.  As I said before, Pope Francis, like every other Pope, even Peter, is only the Pope, he cannot change the moral law.  The Holy Father, in his humility, knows that all too well even if many of his new-found supporters do not.

 

I also note with interest what Archbishop Muller says about the Orthodox Church's approach to divorce and remarriage.  He writes that “This practice cannot be reconciled with God’s will, as expressed unambiguously in Jesus’ sayings about the indissolubility of marriage”.  For a very good and clear article on this issue I would recommend Jimmy Aiken's most recent post.

 

All that said, the Church and her shepherds must continue to show love and compassion to those who find themselves in irregular unions and include them as much as possible in the life of the Church even if full sacramental and administrative inclusion is not possible.  For one thing greater resources and time should be given to marriage tribunals.  In the US, I believe, bishops and diocesan curiae are quite efficient in this area, but in other parts of the Church, including Ireland this pastoral work does not have the priority, funding or staffing it needs. 

 

And finally, hearty congratulations to Michael Warsaw and Doug Keck of EWTN who have been promoted.  Michael has been appointed Chairman of the Network's board, and Doug is now President; worthy appointments.  May the Lord bless them in their work, they can be sure of the Network's support and good wishes.

Media Distort Francis....Again!

 

Here we go again!  I'm really getting tired of this.  I'm not tired with Francis or what he says, perhaps not crazy about the way he does some things; but I deeply admire his easy approach to the Papacy and his obvious piety.   Of course he challenges, as he should, just as long as he is being challenged himself - the first person a priest must preach to is himself: and it is obvious Francis walks the talk.

 

No, I am tired with the way this pontificate has fallen prey to the ideologies of the media and dissenting Catholics who are now using a simple and pious Pope to further their old, tired agendas.  And tonight, as I write, the greatest abuse of this Papacy has just taken place - the media have utterly distorted and taken out of context an interview the Holy Father has given.

 

The headlines are proclaiming that the pope says the Church is obsessed with abortion, gay marriage and contraception - rather than go into detail, I'll just link you to The Irish Times which can always be trusted to distort a Catholic story.  As you see, according to this paper, the pope rejects this "obsession".  So, we are told, Francis is, apparently, distancing himself from the Church's teaching on abortion, contraception and gay marriage.

 

Now read what he actually said - see the interview here. And this is the statement the secular media are basing their headlines on:

"We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.

I have emphasised the word "only" which puts the quotation in context.  He is not saying that we abandon our pro-life work, but that we be balanced - that our living of the Gospel, our Christian discipleship should be as radical as our counter-cultural work for life in the culture of death.  We do not follow dogmas for the sake of slavish obedience, we live the Christian faith as real disciples, a faith that finds expression in the dogmas.  Pope Benedict often spoke about that: we live with Christ.
 

No one ever died for a dogma, someone once said, the martyrs died for love.  St Thomas More did not die for the dogma of the primacy of the Pope, he died for love of Christ within which he understood and accepted the primacy of the Pope as Christ's Vicar who is the symbol of the Church's communion.  Subtle difference?  Perhaps.  But a vital one: one the media does not get.  Remember, as one journalist once told me: a lot of journalists are lazy - they go for the headline and, if they get things wrong, or distort the truth it matters little, certainly when dealing with the Church which rarely if ever defends herself and when she does, well, no one listens to her: the story has already poisoned the waters. 

 

It is in the context of our faith that we Catholics speak about abortion, gay marriage and contraception; and the context of human dignity (which he speaks about in an earlier paragraph in the interview) - these things offend and destroy human dignity as experience show us time and time again. 

 

Note I also emphasise the line where Francis makes it clear that is a faithful son of the Church - he accepts Church teaching on these issues and he is not going to change it. 

 

He also speaks about the moral edifice of the Church collapsing because it has lost the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel - that, I'm sure, is a reference to the vision of Pope Innocent III who saw St Francis saving the Church from destruction.  The Pope is correct here too.  The Church's edifice may seem to fall if it is jaded, and that is why God sends reformers and Saints.  But these reformers and Saints live within the communion of the Church, obedient to Christ and his teaching, not seeking to overthrow it and replace it with "mere human teaching", as the "spirit of Vatican II" crowd is trying to do.   St Francis who helped reform the Church in the 13th century was a faithful son of the Church, and if he were around today he would be compassionate, working with the poor and the sick: but he would not be escorting women into abortion clinics as some nuns do, nor publicly denouncing the Magisterium (Church teaching) as some priests do.

 

And lest our critics think the Church will fall, as some journalists this evening are suggesting: she won't - Christ himself has said that she will not fall. Nor will she stop preaching the Gospel - a good, subjective course on Church history will provide plenty of examples.  She gets lazy and gives into the world, and then something happens, like the collapse of secular society or the emergence of great reformers like Francis, Ignatius, Teresa of Avila, John Paul II, and new renaissance begins, a restoration of faith and a renewal in the context of the Gospel.

 

But at this stage all this is now academic: the distorted message is going right around the world and the media continue to use Francis to further their own agenda.  It is obvious that for the rest of his pontificate, Francis is going to be used: his statements will be presented out of context, his defence of the faith ignored and his "failure" to change Church teaching presented as his failure to overcome a nasty, entrenched right-wing Curia which scuppered every attempt at "reform".  Should he die suddenly, of a heart attack or something, then he was murdered.

 

What do we do with all this?  "Endure" comes to mind.  We've had it all before with Blessed John XXIII who, if you listen to some commentators, was almost a free-loving hippy, smashing Church doctrines as he tried to convert us all into Buddhist Unitarians.  Though this view of John is shared by the "spirit of Vatican II" lot and the extreme Traditionalists, it is inaccurate.  Francis Phillips of The Catholic Herald thinks the media will eventually fall out with the Pope (perhaps if he decides to dispense procedure and canonise Pope Pius XII that may well happen). 

 

Perhaps, but to be honest, I'm not sure.  The pessimist in me thinks we'll just have to sit this one out, do our best to report what the Pope is actually saying, knowing that perhaps we have lost this one.  Certainly the Pope needs to be made aware of how the media distorts what he says, if he doesn't know already, and how this affects the Church and her members.  Sometimes in the way he says things he leaves himself open to be misquoted and distorted.  In the meantime we also need to encourage Catholics to read what the Pope actually says, to remind them that they cannot believe everything they read or hear about in the media, especially when it comes to the Church. 

 

All that said, great damage has been done to the Church tonight, old myths have been reinforced and the Church's work for the dignity of the unborn has been undermined.  The world now thinks the Pope has rebuked us for holding to the moral law and that may well have consequences for all of us.  I cannot help but wish that the Pope had been a little more prudent in the way he spoke.  I will not be surprised if this evening many Catholics are angry and upset with the Holy Father, and they cannot be blamed for that.

 

UPDATES:

 

Fr Z has an interesting initial response. I cannot help but agree with him when he says: "As you read the interview, and media coverage of the interview, you will find – and this is consistent with Pope Francis’ style of talking off-the-cuff – some truly quotable quotes, leap-out quotes that sit up and beg to be taken out of context."  Also his suggestion that the creation of a "virtual Francis" is taking place sounds right.  On that issue, Elizabeth Scalia has an interesting piece.  She wonders if the world is making an idol out of Francis; one, perhaps, to push a certain agenda.

Fr Dwight Longenecker has a very thoughtful piece in response to the Pope's interview.  It is worth reading. 

And Brantly Millegan has taken sixteen quotations from the interview for our reflection, revealing in a concise manner what the Pope actually says in the interview rather than what the media wants him to say.

Solidarity

 

Fr Alexander Lucie-Smith of the Catholic Herald always has something interesting to say on his online blog at the paper.  I would like to draw your attention to his most recent offering.

 

Responding to an article by the former Chief Rabbi of Great Britain, Jonathan Sacks in which he discusses the persecution of Christians, Fr Lucie-Smith asks a simple question: What can we do to help our persecuted brothers and sisters?  To be honest it seems no one cares about them: certainly not governments nor even the UN, and yet every day Christians are being killed, driven out of their homes and lands, treated as second-class citizens.

 

Fr Lucie Smith offers a few suggestions.  First of all for us Christians to boycott those countries which persecute our brothers and sisters in terms of our vacation.  We should decide not to visit those countries - he mentions China, Egypt and the Maldives, the latter being considered an island paradise which is in reality a hell for its native Christian.  That is a good point - why should we spent our hard-earned money to prop up a persecuting regime.  I note that many Irish used to visit Middle Eastern kingdoms for shopping expeditions.  I'm not sure if they have the money for that now, but certainly a rethink there would be a good idea. 

 

Secondly, it is suggested that we put pressure on our governments to protest the treatment of Christians.  Citing the pressure Evangelical Christians put on the American government with regards to Sudan, Fr Lucie-Smith says we can urge our governments to break off cultural and sporting links with these countries.  A good idea too.  That may be difficult here in Ireland at the moment, our current government prefers to break links with the Holy See and is actually courting China: they follow the money.  I suppose given that one of the partners in government is socialist and members have had links with communist countries in the past, we can hardly expect a move there.   But pressure can still be applied.

 

And finally, Fr Lucie-Smith suggests that Christians join the ranks of those who protest whenever leaders from those countries visit our country: embarrass them and our government during these unacceptable cosy encounters.

 

A few good ideas. I would also add that we must make others aware of the persecution.  One of the problems we have in Ireland is an anti-Christian media, so most people here are not aware that our fellow Christians are being persecuted because the media is not reporting it: it goes against their agenda.   Priests should speak of this persecution in their sermons, we should include regular intercessions in the Prayers of the Faithful.  And of course we must pray for them and support them as much as we can, financially in so far as we can.  Time for solidarity.

 

If you have any other ideas, please let us know.

The Pope, The Devil, The Media And The Exorcism That Might Not Have Been

I was wondering when our beloved media was going to tire of Pope Francis and realise that he is not the great white hope for dissenting Catholics, but rather a traditional and innovative Pontiff who is just quite simple in his way of life and his celebration of the liturgy.  I think it may well be happening now.  It seems the media are getting a little tired of the Holy Father's references to the devil. 

 

When it comes to speaking about the evil one I think Pope Francis has clocked up a modern Papal record.  Since his election he has referred to the prince of lies a number of times and, up until recently, while they may have been shifting uncomfortably in their seats, the people in the media have ignored it.  But, as you are aware, some are now getting a little irate.  Well, I suppose you have to hand it to them, they did endure the orthodoxy for longer than I thought they would, I thought the urge to scratch the itch would have provoked a reaction before now.  But it seems the scratching has begun.

 

The Holy Father is quite right to warn us about the devil and his activity.  I have no doubt Francis sees how much demonic activity is going on around us - and I think there is a lot.  Certainly here in Ireland the evil one is very busy prowling the corridors of power as he works on his plan of destroying human life.  We need to be aware that our main opponents in the struggle for life are not flesh and blood, but, as Jesus said in the Gospel, "powers and principalities". 

 

The way the devil works is to tempt men and women to do his bidding, he then helps them carry out his mission and destroy those who try to prevent this mission, and then he turns on those who served him.  His plan is for total destruction.  In the struggle against abortion he seeks to destroy nascent human life and those involved in the pro-life movement who stand for truth, which he hates; and then he turns on his servants and destroys them.  In doing all this he cares not a whit for men and women, he just wants to hurt God.  The devil wants to separate us from God, lead us to a point where in pride we turn away from God - this happens either by outright rejection, or, more subtly, convincing people that their idea of God is the true God and any doctrine that contradicts their opinion is rejected.  In this second tactic the devil is leading people into idolatry.  So the Holy Father is right to warn us: living in this relativistic age many have reinvented God to their own tastes and ideology.  This "god" is an idol and in worshipping this idol many are lead to implicitly reject the true God.

 

While some in the media are getting annoyed at Francis, others jumped on the story that he performed an exorcism in St Peter's Square. Some sources have said that the young man prayed over is troubled in some way, and I presume at the Audience the priest who accompanied him asked the Pope to pray over the man, providing the Holy Father with some details as to what the affliction was.  What happened, I think, was a simple prayer of blessing and the young man reacted, as those under the influence of the evil one tend to react.  There is no way the Holy Father would have performed an exorcism in full view of the world's media - these things are done quietly so as not to sensationalise what is a delicate ministry in the Church.  Now if the Pope's prayer of blessing (or simple prayer of deliverance) can actually liberate someone there and then, well and good.  It is possible for  the Vicar of Christ, who is a holy man, to liberate in such an easy way if it is what God desires.

 

Michael Kelly has an interesting article on the issue which is well worth reading.  I would reiterate Michael's last words: "He hasn't gone away".  We need to be aware of that - not fearful: the victory has already been won by the Lord Jesus.  But we need to be one step ahead, and we will be if we give ourselves to Christ, as Pope Francis has been advising us since the first day of his Papacy.

Excommunication?

The media has been reporting in the last couple of days that pro-abortion Catholic TDs are being threatened with excommunication if they vote for the abortion bill.  Now perhaps a bishop has said something and I am not aware of it, but I do not think the issue has been raised by anyone in the hierarchy, not in public anyway.  As far as I can see the only thing that was said was that comment by Cardinal Brady in which he said that he did not want to politicise the Eucharist.    To be honest, I would be surprised if an Irish bishop mentioned the imposition of canonical penalties at all seeing as they have avoided any such measures for the last fifty years even in cases where they were required.

 

For one thing, I do not think a politician can be excommunicated for voting for an abortion bill, not at first anyway.  The norm, according to canon law, the famous canon 915 (most cited, often ignored), is that they must be refused the Eucharist, but only after certain conditions have been applied.  Here is the canon:

Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.

Now a quick examination of this canon in the present context.  If a Catholic TD or Senator votes for this legislation (I believe Catholic members of the cabinet have already voted for this bill, so this canon now applies to them) they have not been excommunicated, nor are they under interdict, as of yet, so the first part of the canon does not apply yet.  However, the second part will.  To vote for the bill will be a grave sin which will require sacramental confession, personal penance and, I would also say, public repudiation of their vote and public penance of some form. 

 

If a TD or Senator votes for the bill, it will be the duty of his or her bishop to contact the politician and inform them of the serious nature of their act and to tell them that until they have confessed and repudiated their vote, they should not present themselves for Holy Communion.  If a politician ignores or dissents from this, the bishop has a duty to contact the politician again to call them back and admonish them.  If the politician continues to reject this, then they will be considered to be "persevering in manifest grave sin" - manifest because their vote is well known and their continuing to present themselves for the Eucharist will also be a public act.  At this point the bishop must formally inform the politician that if they continue to present themselves for the Eucharist they will be refused. 

 

The bishop must then inform all of his priests of the situation and direct them to refuse the politician communion; all Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion in the diocese are bound by this directive also.  (As an aside: this may present difficulties for lay Extraordinary Ministers, but they have no choice but to follow the directive.  When training laypeople for this ministry they must be informed that they may be required to refuse the Eucharist at times.  Indeed one good way of discerning candidates for this ministry is to see if they would obey such a directive.)  Now if a politician continues to ignore the directive, does not repent, then things could develop and he or she may face excommunication. 

 

This may seem like a long process - it can be, but must not be dragged out either.  The process must allow for space and time for reflection - a politician must be given time to repent.  The Church imposes penalties not for revenge, but to help bring a lost sheep back to their senses - she is concerned with reconciliation.   The process also puts the onus on the bishop to fulfil his duty to guide and teach his flock.   If a bishop fails to do this, leaves matters as they are in the hope that they will sort themselves out, or for spurious "pastoral reasons", he will be not only be failing in his duty, but also endangering a soul for lack of direction and, yes, admonishment.   For this omission the bishop will have to answer to God.  Charity and gentleness are required, but these virtues should never be confused with fear or inability to act.

 

So let us be careful when we hear the media speak of excommunication - remember the media are trying to get this abortion legislation through and so want to destroy those who oppose it.  In reporting on excommunication the media wants to show the Church as interfering in the political process.  We must not let the media set the agenda.  Nor force our shepherds into silence either.  Again, the Lord's teaching on doves and serpents applies. 

"Getting it Across The Line"

Every pregnancy has a face: it is the face of a child.

 

This was the phrase a journalist used on Newstalk radio today, the "it" being abortion legislation.  He was asking a pro-abortion senator, Prof. John Crown, what the government needs to do to get abortion legislation across the line.  Given the nature of the conversation it was obvious, in my view, that the journalist was not objective, but a supporter of abortion and keen to see the procedure legalised.  But then none of us are surprised at that: as we all know the mainstream media are no longer observers, but avid participants in what can only be described as a propaganda campaign to desensitise the Irish people and ensure the first step towards abortion on demand is taken in our parliament before the summer recess.  A step that will be taken, our Taoiseach promised just a hour or so ago in an interview.

 

All of this is happening as the Kermit Gosnell trial is taking place in the US and the horrors of abortion are being exposed in courtroom, but, again as we know, it is being ignored by the mainstream media for fear people see the reality of the holocaust which is taking place in the abortion clinics of the world.   

 

One of the most interesting periods in European history, I think, is the pre-war period 1930-1939, particularly in Germany.   One of the questions that has often been asked is: how could an entire population be fooled into voting for the National Socialist Party?  How could the people of Germany, and then Austria, give their support to an ideology that demonised a whole race of people?  The same question could be asked of the US in the early decades of the 20th century as black men and women were considered the property of the whites and were discriminated against.

 

Well, to be honest, I get a sense of what it must have been like as I reflect on what is happening in Ireland in the last few months.  Government, media and pro-abortion groups, in what seems like a grand coalition, have created an ideological climate in which the unborn child's humanity has been denied and compassion re-figured to allow the "termination" of unborn life as the only rational response to a perceived threat to a woman's life.   It is a stifling climate where the pro-life view has been well and truly excluded from any meaningful public discourse, and those on the airwaves exude an attitude that abortion is logical, normal, compassionate and just: indeed no one could possibly question it or object to it.

 

As I stand back at look at this I can see how all opposition has been squeezed out, silenced, demonised.  And in the midst of it there is not one mention, not one nod, to the humanity of the child in the womb - in all the discussions in the media the child is missing, he or she does not exist.  It is extraordinary to see how a human life can be erased so effectively from public discourse and from view.  And that is what frightens me most of all: the utter airbrushing of the other, of the child.  This is what it must have been like in Germany as National Socialists denied the humanity of the Jewish people and then eventually began to airbrush them out of society and out of public view in to the gas chambers. 

 

Bernard Nathanson, the abortion doctor who became pro-life and one of the greatest advocates of the humanity of the unborn child, once said that when people begin to talk about personhood, denying it to others, then a holocaust always follows.  That is what is happening here in Ireland: as pro-abortion politicians and journalists seek to deny that a person exists in the womb, what will follow will be a holocaust.   Of course the pro-abortion people deny this.  Prof. John Crown in the interview I mentioned above said that he gets upset when people say the floodgates will open: he believes they will not. Well we need only look at the experience of other countries to see that limited abortion always leads to a more liberal abortion regime.  This is only the beginning, and the pro-abortion coalition knows this. 

 

Spinning The Spin

 

I made a mistake last night - I skipped over from EWTN to some secular news channels to see how they were reporting the Black Smoke.  I should have stayed with Ray and the gang.  The language of the BBC, SKY and CNN was negative.  At least I did not pop over to RTE, I had too much sense for that.

 

The BBC reported that the Cardinals had "failed" to elect a Pope.   It seems they may well be intent on creating a crisis story for the Church.  In fact one tweeter said this morning that the media will try and use the time it takes to elect a Pope and make it feel as if they cannot come up with a candidate and so the Catholic Church is in so much trouble she cannot even get a leader.  Part of the problem is living an age when everything is instant - the media and many today, cannot cope with process, they must have an answer now, today, and not to get one immediately is interpreted, rightly or wrongly, as a sign that there is a problem. 

 

CNN was better, a little more objective, but then they resorted to the usual cache of issues, particularly women priests.  One reporter was interviewing Cardinal Egan, Emeritus Archbishop of New York, and her line was that the Church is near its end, sunk in a crisis it cannot get out of because she doggedly holds on to old fashioned doctrines.  Poor Cardinal Egan did his best, but I think she was unconvinced.

 

The media is obsessed with "crisis" - the Church must always be in "crisis".  They list scandals and problems and think the Church will crumble beneath the weight of them.  I think for some this is wishful thinking: they want the Church to crumble, or rather her adherence to Christ's teachings: a neutral, neutered Church would be no problem for them. 

 

Is the Church in crisis?  Yes and no.  Yes in that she is always in a state of crisis - she is trying to preach the Gospel in age of disbelief, struggling under persecution, while some of her own members resist the Gospel themselves and even sin greviously.  Crisis - yes, perhaps, although I think St Paul puts it better when he says that we are growing, labouring, coming to birth.  

 

The Church has dealt with some bad situations in the past - the Arian crisis may well have been worse than this, the Reformation was not easy either.  As for crisis Conclaves - that which was called after the death of Pope Pius VI was a crisis Conclave - they could not even meet in Rome and the threat of another imprisoned Pontiff hung over them.  Yet the Church and Papacy emerged triumphant: as Napoleon dragged Pius VII through Paris to humilate him at the imperial coronation, the people of France saw how their Holy Father was being treated and it led to a revival of faith and love of the Pope.  Somehow the Church always comes through, not through her own efforts, but by the help and guidance of the Holy Spirit.  In faith we can say that this will continue in our time.

 

As for this election: the process of electing a Pope, as we know, takes time - the Cardinals do not rush into a decision.  We must also understand that a Conclave is in fact a liturgy - some Cardinals have been reminding us of that recently.  During the scrutinies they do not talk to each other, they pray.  They vote, and then as each one presents his vote he prays, there is silence, a time for meditation.  Indeed during the first Conclave of 1978 Cardinal Wojtyla was able to write poetry.  So the Cardinals will not be hasty to accomodate the lunchtime news: they are involved in something important here. The fact that a candidate has to get two-thirds majority also means it will take time. 

 

So no rush, and no crisis.  If a Conclave lasts a few weeks, then the media can start to talk about a log-jam, but until then, just take it easy boys and girls.  Sit down, read a good book, have a Horlicks and pray with the rest of us.  Constantly spinning the spin must be exhausting.

 

Now, we'll settle down to watch the chimney.   We have confirmation in our parish today, so that will keep me occupied.

Rome: Some Tips For Bored Reporters

"You need a story...?  Well, Sr Maria Bernadina was telling us this morning before Mass that Mother Angela's hip is in much better form today so she might be able hold off on the surgery for a few more months. Oh yes, and then there is Padre Luigi's verruca...."

If you want to text your favourite Cardinal to arrange a post-Conclave lunch you had better do it soon as the Vatican Gendarmerie are installing the technology to keep the College from being contacted or contacting anyone during the Conclave.  Rome Reports has an interesting snippet on this and the security which is being put in place. 

 

Cardinal Pham has arrived, so all the electoral Cardinals are now in Rome, we may expect a date for the Conclave soon.   However, I think we need to be patient - the Cardinals need time to talk and think and these days of the Sede Vacante allow that. 

 

The media want a quick Conclave because their respective publications need a story for the day, but they can wait.  A Conclave need not start until the 20th March, and if that time is needed to really talk about what the Church needs, then it is time well spent.   Some are saying that they are taking a long time: actually they are not - this is normal.  It seems long because Benedict announced his intention to abdicate on the 11th February, and then there is no Papal funeral to fill in the time, as it were.  If the Pope had died the Cardinals would still be doing all this but we would be distracted by the lying in state and funeral rites.   I imagine that when they do go in to the Conclave we may well see a quick election and a new pope perhaps after a couple of days - which is actually the norm given the last few Conclaves.

 

I realise that the media is restless - apparently there are about 5,000 journalists in Rome and they are twiddling their thumbs anxiously.  So, for all of these reporters, a few ideas to fill in the time and help them resist the urge to fall back on fiction when filing their articles.

 

First of all, if they are Catholic and have been away from the Sacraments, they can pop into St Peter's and go to confession.  All language groups are catered for and the confessors are very good and gentle.  If they feel the need to really make amends for past failures, they can pop over to St John Lateran, there is a confessor in there and he will give them a hefty penance and get them praying for every intention under the sun (bring a notebook).  If reporters are in doubt, just go to St John Lateran!

 

Secondly, the Station Masses are taking place in various Churches in the city. It is a wonderful Lenten spiritual exercise which also doubles as a spiritual itinerary to some of the most beautiful Basilicas and churches in Rome.   The English Mass is at 7am, or in Italian in the evening.  To find out where the Mass is for any given day just ask an American seminarian (seen riding a bike, with cassock, helmet and backpack - bottle of water stuck in sash optional), or you can consult the NAC website.

 

A visit to some of the city's more unusual sites can also fill in a few hours as reporters come to terms with the new media silence from the General Congregations.  One of the more fascinating, informative and indeed cautionary, is the Museum of Purgatory, guaranteed to get one thinking.  After that visit, if you have not been to St John Lateran's, you will feel the urge to go ASAP.

 

Plenty of great little bars for coffee and also offering a nice selection of pastries - it's Lent so avoid them.

 

Then there are some wonderful bookshops.  The Ancora bookshop at the top of the Via Conciliazione offers a wide selection of books in English (in the basement).  There is also the Leonine bookshop behind the Via Concilizione on Via dei Corridori.  In either of these reporters can pick up books on Catholicism and find out what we actually believe, and they will also find some of Pope Benedict's books - perhaps they could pass a few hours sitting in St Peter's Square reading what Benedict actually wrote.

 

Of course when in Rome do as the Romans do: pop over to the Missionaries of Charity and offer your services - they could do with some help serving dinners, helping the homeless or doing odd jobs around the city.  Bring your wallet (they don't take credit cards, just cash).  And do not worry about missing any announcements - the nuns of Rome are the first to know all the news so they'll tell you if anything happens. 

 

And, of course, siesta.  When it comes to noon forget everything and go to bed until about 5pm: it is against the Romani's religion to do any work in those hours of the riposo, and when Catholics are in Rome we are all Romani, so too our Cardinals.

 

And last, but not least, indeed one of the most important: join us in prayer.

Jews, Christians, Saints

 

This Twitter thing is proving to be most useful!  As you know I signed on a few weeks ago and it has kept me informed (minute to minute) of what is going on.  It also gives me links to interesting articles, and thanks to David Quinn today I read a very good article by a Jewish rabbi.  Rabbi Yitzchok Alderstein is writing about the persecution of Christians and he believes that we are now more persecuted than the Jewish people.  The article can be found here.

 

The rabbi is correct.   Christians are now the most persecuted religious group in the world, and that persecution is being ignored by the mainstream media and even some social justice groups. Why?  I suppose because what we believe is not politically correct for one thing, but also because Christianity is also being persecuted by secularists in the West, of which many media outlets are ideological supporters.  While the rabbi concentrated on Islamic persecution of Christians - it is only part of a larger "pogrom" against orthodox Christianity.

 

For one thing you need only look at the coverage of Pope Benedict's pontificate.  If ever a man had a reason to sue he had.  If he wanted he could take western media groups to the cleaners because of lies, insinuations and outright libel.  Of course those in the media know Christians strive to forgive, and so count on our adherence to that command of the Lord.   Poor media savvy among Church officials also means false articles are not rebuked as vociferously as they should be.   Of course such a defence would be difficult given the success secularism has had with ordinary people - many still believe what they hear in the media.  It is hard to overcome ideological stereotypes - the Jewish people know all about that.

 

On another topic - just to let you know our new series of Forgotten Heritage will air on EWTN from the 9th of this month in the US (the UK/Ireland and European airings will be later - I have no date as of yet).  Entitled Forgotten Heritage: Europe and Her Saints Fr Owen and myself look at some of Europe's great saints.  This series is a little longer than the first two - there will be sixteen episodes (it's Lent - offer it up!).   We hope to present a little taste of the holiness which flourished throughout European history, and while we try to be representative with only sixteen programmes and so many saints, we did not get everyone we wanted in. 

 

For your information here is the list of programmes and the saints.  We start with five programmes on the Patrons of the Europe:

 

1.    St Benedict, Patron of Europe

2.    SS Cyril and Methodius, Patrons of Europe

3.    St Bridget of Sweden, Patron of Europe

4.    St Catherine of Siena, Patron of Europe

5.    St Teresa Benedicta of the Cross (St Edith Stein) Patron of Europe

6.    St Columbanus

7.    St Thomas a Becket

8.    St Francis

9.    St Dominic

10.  St Thomas Aquinas

11.  St Thomas More

12.  St Teresa of Avila

13.  St Margaret Mary Alocoque

14.  Pope St Pius X

15.  St Therese of Lisieux

16.  St Gianna Beretta Molla

 

Every time I look at that list I see names we should have included, ah well.  We were trying to cover most areas of human life and Christian experience - priests, religious, laity, missionaries, teachers, government figures, professionals, husbands, wives.  I suppose there could be another series on the saints to cover others.  If you have any ideas let me know.  In the meantime we are planning the fourth series.  

 

While the series can only be viewed on TV in the US, you can get it online at EWTN's website; the first programme airs on Saturday 9th March at 4pm (GMT).

An Open Mind

One of the more interesting thinkers in the British Isles today has to be Brendan O'Neill, an Englishman of Irish descent, an "ex-Catholic" who is now an atheist, an atheist in the full and most open meaning of the word.   

 

While in recent times we have come to associate atheism with anti-faith and for us, anti-Catholic, atheism does not have to mean that.  O'Neill offers us a positive example of one who does not believe in God, but is willing to reflect on religious issues with an open mind.  He has been writing for some time on the Catholic Church and his views are always worth reading because he has some excellent insights.  I attended a lecture he gave in Dublin some months ago and I was mightly impressed. I found myself saying: "If only some of our Catholics were as good as this atheist!"

 

For one thing he sees that the media's coverage of the Church is not as objective as it ought to be, and I would like to draw your attention to one of his recent articles in the Telegraph on that exact point.  

 

 

Benedict and Vatican II

 

One of the most eventful weeks in recent times and my computer decides to give up the ghost!  My poor laptop which has served me faithfully for over five years, resisting the frustrations of Vista and XP, finally said it could go on no longer.  So in the last few days I have been trying to get a replacement and save files from the hard drive.  But all is almost sorted. I have two missing files, but I will be going back to the computer doctor so he can help me find them.

 

I think we are all still reeling after Pope Benedict's announcement, and what emotional days these have been.  At least, in the midst of the sorrow, the Holy Father can see the love the faithful have for him - he was truly our holy Father and we have the opportunity to let him know.  

 

Tributes have been pouring in, and they have been fulsome.  The faithful are praising him, many of them understanding why he has decided to step down.  I was impressed with what Cardinal Arinze had to say, if you have not seen the video, I am posting it below. 

 

In these final days, Benedict has been enriching our understanding of the faith, continuing his ministry right to the end...and offering us new insights.  His unscripted talk to the priests of the diocese of Rome on Vatican II was revealing.  Here is the text.  As a witness to what was happening in those years, Benedict is well placed to offer reflections on what was happening.  In his talk he speaks of two Councils - the Council of the Church and the council of the media, the one which has triumphed over the last forty years.  While the legitimate Council was taking place in the context of faith - the council of the media was nothing more than politics - a struggle between "conservatives" and "liberals", the baddies and the goodies.  This is the image which has prevaled precisely because faith has been excised from the meaning of the Council. 

 

Yet, as the Holy Father points out, there was a great sense of joy and hope: great theologians like de Lubac, Congar, Danielou were present (as he was himself - no mean theologian himself), and these great thinkers were drawing on the ancient traditions and teachings of the Church Fathers and saw in them a path for authentic renewal and the impetus for a new evangelical thrust.  All of this has yet to be discovered, but thanks to his Papacy, Benedict has been opening the door to the Council for all of us.  His General Audiences on the Saints, for example, have exposed the ordinary faithful to the lives and teachings of the holy ones who can teach us how to live the Gospel in our time. 

 

I have to say I feel a great sadness for Ireland - for the Catholics of our country did not get the chance to see Benedict in the flesh and to hear him speak.  For many in the Church here their only exposure is that which our media allowed, and that was deeply distorted and unjust.  I was talking with a good Catholic man today and he opined over the many mistakes Benedict had made, how he ignored child abuse and frustrated the efforts of bishops dealing with it.  This is the Irish media's view of Benedict and it is the exact opposite of the truth. 

 

In a sense, many in Ireland have been kept in the dark by the media - like mushrooms and fed plenty of manure to make them mistrust the Pope and the Church.  Many have been betrayed by priests - true; but I believe the Irish have been betrayed by the Irish media who destroyed a wonderful papacy and calumnied a holy man because they did not like what he had to say - because he said it so well.  At the end of the day they were afraid of him - if people really listened to him they would not only be charmed by his simple holiness, but would see that what he teaches is true and beautiful: our media masters understood that all too well.

 

Anyway, I hope people in Ireland will eventually come to know and understand this wonderful Pontiff.   There are many of us younger priests who have tried to share his teaching with them (not withouy much opposition - some have even tried to silence us), but we will continue.  Why?  Because in order to understand Vatican II we need to listen to what Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI has to say - he is one of those who influenced it.  

Pray For Journalists

Our Saint today has a special significance for our Fraternity – St Francis de Sales, the gentle Bishop of Geneva, is the patron of writers and journalists.  Throughout his ministry St Francis taught the faith with great love and earnestness converting many who had left the Church for Protestantism.  He was so successful the Calvinists of Geneva deeply resented him and he could not live in the city.

Francis wrote a great deal, and his writings are mainly concerned with holiness.  In his book Introduction to the Devout Life, he offers spiritual advice to a laywoman, reminding her that she is called to become a Saint by living a life of virtue where she is.  For his writings and their influence, he was declared a Doctor of the Church.    

As patron of journalists, we can commend to his intercession those who work in the media, and let’s face it, they need our prayers.  Their patron was dedicated to the truth and taught others how to live the truth; unfortunately there are those in the media who are not really interested in truth, but rather work according to a political agenda and chose their stories in order to promote that agenda.  Yet the profession of the journalist is one of testimony to the truth, so we must pray that those who struggling to remain true to that may have the courage to do so, and those who have wandered off that path may return to it. 

To celebrate the saint’s feast day, the Archbishop of Chieti-Vasto in Italy, Archbishop Bruno Forte, has composed a new prayer for journalists.  Here is my translation of the prayer.   

Lord,

You have called me to serve my neighbour

through the means of information.

Grant that I may do so always in obedience to the truth,

with the courage to pay what is due to each person

so they are never betrayed.

Help me also to unite the truth with charity,

never to hurt anyone's dignity

and promote in all, as much as I can, justice and peace.

That I may not have favourites,

but that I may propose my ideas with humility,

honesty and freedom of heart.

Grant that I may be a witness

to the love that comes from you,

to the truth that liberates and saves.

You who live and reign with God the Father,

for ever and ever. Amen

Today the Holy Father release his Message for World Communications Day which will be marked on the 12th May this year.  You will find the text here.

More Information: A Planned Campaign?

More information on the Savita Halappanavar tragedy is coming to light, or to be exact on the pro-abortion lobby's campaign. 

According to LifeSiteNews, a leaked email from a pro-abortion campaign organisation dated Sunday 11th November, the Irish Choice Network, reveals that the organisation was given advance knowledge of the tragedy and so began to plan a campaign to exploit the woman's death to further their agenda.  The email was a call to members to assemble for a meeting to discuss what they were going to do in response to "a major news story in relation to abortion access".  That would explain how protests and vigils could be organised so quickly - they may well have been organised during week before the story broke.

Questions are being asked: who tipped off the INC?  Was it the media or someone else?  If this email is authentic, then it is sure evidence that the pro-abortion brigade in Ireland have planned this frenzy and are fueling it with the help of, and possibly at the instigation of, elements within the media. 

Exploiting A Tragedy?

No doubt you are all following recent events here in Ireland – the tragic death of an Indian woman in an Irish hospital as a result of a miscarriage.  It is an awful situation and we must remember her husband and family at this time. 

As if the death of a young woman was not bad enough, the pro-abortion lobby are now exploiting her untimely death to push the government into legislating for abortion.  And it seems the government may well use this case to do so.   A lot has been written about the case in the last twenty-four hours.  There is a lot of anger and some protests, all by those who want to legalise the killing of the unborn.  However, as always when it comes to abortion and politics, truth tends to be the first casualty, and as people shout and protest, the truth is being conveniently pushed to one side. As doctors and pro-life groups are attempting to point out the real medical situation, pro-abortion politicians and groups and the media are trying to drown them out.   Seeing as the expert group’s report has just landed on the Minister for Health’s desk and is due to be published in a week or so, it all seems to be (eerily) perfectly timed for the anti-life brigade.

The simple matter of fact here is that Savita Halappanavar did not die because she was refused an abortion.  The procdures necessary to save her life (abortion not being one of them) are already permissible under current medical guidelines and under Catholic ethical guidelines, and are performed in Irish hospitals whenever such cases present themselves.  Why they were not preformed is now the subject of an investigation, and rightly so.   But thanks to the muddied waters being stirred up this basic fact is being ignored and quickly shoved out of sight. 

I would refer you to David Quinn’s excellent article in the The Irish Independent today.  He also points out that the media, who are now giving wall to wall coverage of this poor woman’s death, tends to fall silent when it comes to reporting on the deaths of women during and after abortions.  Eilis Mulroy’s article in the same paper is also important reading.  There is also a very good, detailed reflection on the case by the Thirsty Gargoyle.  William Oddie of the Catholic Herald also offers us some opinions which are worth considering.

I think we were all waiting for something like this to happen.  We knew that as the report was due to come out the pro-abortion brigade would find something to push their case.  I just find it despicable that they are exploiting this woman’s death.  But then as a friend said to me yesterday evening: “If they think it is okay to kill a baby, then there are no moral barriers they’ll respect”.  Anyway we need to pray and do what we can. 

Other news.  George Weigel has a most interesting article on Church/civil marriage: he is actually arguing the point I made some time ago – it may be time for the Catholic Church to withdraw from cooperation with the civil authorities in conducting marriage ceremonies.   Canonist Ed Peters disagrees and offers a thought provoking response.  He sees it in a different light – the Church does not conduct civil weddings, but rather the state accords civil recognition to those marriages, so the onus is on the state to stop recognising them rather than on the Church.  This is a useful point to make.  Anyway, I think we should be talking about it.