Mass in Belsen

Fr Sean Coyle sent this account of Mass in Belsen after its liberation in response to a previous post on a speech by Cardinal Piacenza, the full article can be found here.
Thank you Father.

The most moving experience came on the second morning as I was walking from what had been the luxury SS barracks which our troops had transformed into a hospital. My attention was drawn to two packing cases covered by a worn red curtain. A young Polish priest was clinging to this makeshift altar with one hand, while celebrating Mass. Between his feet lay the body of another priest who probably died during the night. No one had had the energy to move the body.I had no difficulty in following the old Latin Mass, having been educated at St James's Roman Catholic School in County Antrim, and, although an Anglican, I had gained a working knowledge of all the rituals. Still supporting himself against the altar, the young priest did his best to distribute the consecrated elements. Some recipients were able to stumble over the rough, scrubby heathland. Others crawled forward to receive the tokens and then crawled back to share them with others unable to move. Some almost certainly passed on to another - probably better - world before sunset. Whatever one's race or religion one can only be uplifted and impressed by that truly remarkable proof of the ultimate triumph of good over evil.

Unbroken Magisterium

The Cardinal with students from the Irish College

There is another very interesting speech by Cardinal Mauro Piacenza, prefect of the Congregation for Clergy on Zenit, on celibacy but what he says about the hermeneutic of continuity and the unbroken Magisterium is interesting.

Above all there emerges the radical continuity between the Magisterium that preceded the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and that which came after it. Albeit with accents that demonstrate the different sensibilities of the times, some more liturgical-sacral, other more Christological-pastoral, the unbroken Magisterium of the Pontiffs in question is consistent in basing Celibacy on the theological reality of the ministerial Priesthood, on the ontological-sacramental configuration to Christ the Lord, on the participation in His unique Priesthood and on the imitatio Christi which is implied in that. Only an incorrect hermeneutic of the conciliar texts could lad to the conclusion that Celibacy is something left over from the past and from which one ought to liberated at the earliest opportunity. Such an approach is not only historically, doctrinally and theologically erroneous, but it is also extremely damaging to the spiritual, pastoral, missionary and vocational outlook.

A Priest: Is he a Martian? Is he a stranger? Is he a fossil?

I do not normally put up long articles from elsewhere but this I thought was just so good, it is by  Cardinal Mauro Piacenza, prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, at a meeting with priests of  Los Angeles. It is an illustration of what Abp Gomez is up to.
I was going to highlight passages but found I had highlighted most of it.

* * *
Very dear Priests:
A few decades ago, American writer Dorothy Thompson published in a magazine article the results of careful research on the ill-famed concentration camp of Dachau.
A key question addressed to the survivors was the following: "In the midst of the Dachau hell, who remained for the longest time in a balanced condition? Who kept his sense of identity for the longest time?" The answer in unison, was always the same: "the Catholic priests." Yes, the Catholic priests! They were able to keep their balance in the midst of so much madness, because they were conscious of their vocation. They had their hierarchy of values. Their dedication to their ideal was total. They were conscious of their specific mission and of the profound reasons that sustained it.
In the midst of the earthly hell, they gave their testimony: that of Jesus Christ!
We live in an unstable world. There is instability in the family, in the world of work, in the various social and professional associations, in schools and in institutions.
The priest must be, however, constitutionally a model of stability and maturity, of full dedication to his apostolate.
Along the uneasy path of society, a question often comes to a Christian's mind: "Who is the priest in today's world? Is he a Martian? Is he a stranger? Is he a fossil? Who is he?"
Secularization, gnosticism, atheism, in their various forms, are increasingly reducing the space of the sacred, they are sucking the blood from the contents of the Christian message.
The men of technology and well-being, the people characterized by the fever of pretense, experience extreme spiritual poverty. They are victims of a serious existential anxiety and manifest themselves incapable of resolving the underlying problems of their spiritual, family and social life.
If we wished to question the most widespread culture, we would realize that it is dominated and impregnated by systematic doubt and a suspicion of everything that refers to faith, reason, religion and natural law.
"God is a useless hypothesis and I am perfectly sure that he does not interest me," wrote Camus.
In the best of hypotheses, a dense silence falls on God, but often one comes to an affirmation of the incurable conflict of two existences destined to eliminate one another: either God or man.
If afterward we were to look at the whole of the picture of moral behavior, we would not fail to see the confusion, disorder and anarchy that reigns in this field.
Man makes himself the creator of good and evil.
He concentrates his attention egoistically on himself.
He substitutes the moral norm with his own desire and pursuit of his own interest.
In this context, the life and ministry of the priest acquire decisive importance and urgent validity. Better still -- allow me to say it -- the more marginalized he is, the more important he is, the more he is regarded as outdated the more he is timely.
The priest must proclaim to the world the eternal message of Christ, in his poverty and radicalism; he must not reduce the message but, instead, comfort people; he must give society -- anesthetized by the message of some hidden directors, holders of the powers that count -- the liberating strength of Christ.
Everyone feels the need of reform in the social, economic and political field; everyone desires that, in labor union struggles and the economic realm, the centrality of man be reaffirmed and observed as well as the pursuit of objectives of justice, solidarity, and convergence toward the common good.
All this will be only a wish if the heart of man is not changed, of so many men, who for their part will renew society.
Look, the Church's real field of battle is the secret landscape of man's spirit, and one doesn't enter it without much tact, much compunction, in addition to counting on the grace of state promised by the sacrament of holy orders.
It is right that the priest insert himself in the ordinary life of men, but he must not yield to the conformisms and compromises of society.
Healthy doctrine, but also historical documentation show us that the Church is able to resist every attack, all the assaults that political, economic and cultural powers can unleash against her, but she cannot resist the danger that comes from forgetting this word of Jesus: "You are the salt of the earth, you are the light of the world." Jesus himself indicates the consequence of this forgetfulness: "But if the salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltness be restored?" (cf. Matthew 5:13-14).
Of what use would be a priest so like the world that he becomes an imitation priest and not transforming leaven?
In the face of a world anemic of prayer and adoration, the priest is, in the first place, the man of prayer, of adoration, of worship, of the celebration of the Holy Mysteries.
In the face of a world submerged in consumer, pansexual messages, attacked by error, presented in the most seductive aspects, the priest must speak of God and of eternal realities and, to be able to do so with credibility, he must be a passionate believer, as well as "clean!"
The priest must accept the impression of being in the midst of people as one who starts from a logic and speaks a language that is different from that of others: "do not conform yourselves to the mentality of this world," (Romans 12:12). He is not like "others." What people expect from him is, in fact, that he not be "like others."
In the face of a world submerged in violence and corroded by egoism, the priest must be the man of charity. From the most pure heights of the love of God, which he experiences particularly, he descends to the valley, where many live a life of loneliness, of lack of communication, of violence, to proclaim to them mercy, reconciliation and hope.
The priest responds to the needs of society by making himself the voice of those without a voice: the little ones, the poor, the elderly, the oppressed, the marginalized.
He does not belong to himself but to others. He does not live for himself and does not look for what is his. He looks for what is Christ's, what is his brothers'. He shares the joys and sorrows of all, without distinctions of age, social category, political membership, religious practice.
He is the guide of that portion of the People of God that has been entrusted to him. He is certainly not the head of an anonymous army, but pastor of a community made up of persons, each of whom has a name, a history, a destiny, a secret.
The priest has the difficult but eminent task of guiding these people with the greatest religious care and with scrupulous respect of their human dignity, their work, their rights, with the full awareness, then, that the condition of children of God corresponds in them to an eternal vocation, which is realized in full communion with God.
The priest will not hesitate to give his life, either in a brief but intense period of generous dedication without limits, or in a daily, long donation in the drop-by-drop progression of humble gestures of service to his people, tending always to the defense and formation of human greatness and of the Christian growth of each of the faithful and of the whole of his people.
A priest must be simultaneously little and great, noble in spirit as a king, simple and natural as a peasant. A hero in overcoming himself, sovereign of his desires, a servant of the little ones and weak ones; who is not humbled in face of the powerful, but who bends down to the poor and the little ones, a disciple of his Lord and head of his flock.
No more precious gift can be given to a community than a priest according to the heart of Christ.
The hope of the world consists in being able to count, also for the future, on the love of limpid, strong and merciful, free and meek, generous and faithful priestly hearts.
Friends, if the ideals are lofty, the way difficult, the terrain perhaps less mined, the misunderstandings are many, but we can do all things in him who strengthens us (cf. Philippians 4:13).
The eclipse of the Light of God and of his Love, is not the extinguishing of the Light and Love of God. Already tomorrow, what had interposed itself, darkening the faith, flinging the world into a terrible darkness, can become less dense, and after the long pause, too long, of the eclipse -- the sun returns, full and splendid.
Beyond the anxieties and disputes that agitate the world, and which also make themselves felt within the Church, in action are secret, hidden forces fruitful in holiness.
Beyond the flow of words and speeches, of programs and plans, of initiatives and organizations, there are holy souls that pray, suffer, expiate adoring the God-with-us.
Among them are children and adults, men and women, young and old people, educated and ignorant souls, sick and healthy, and there are also so many priests, who not only are dispensers of the Mysteries of Christ, but in the present-day Babel are sure signs of reference and hope, for those who seek plenitude, meaning, the end, happiness.
Let us stay united, dear friends, in the Cenacle of the Church, around Mary our Mother, with Peter and the Apostles, submerged in the Communion of Saints, so that we can also be, truly, signs of reference and hope for all.
It is my wish, which I convert into a prayer for all of you who are here present and for all your Brothers, who are not here now. Henceforth I will always have you with me.

Pope Appeals for More Help for the Horn of Africa

Dating and Political Correctness

L'Osservatore Romano; criticises the BBC for wanting to "erase all traces of Christianity from Western culture". I agree with Dylan the headline is a bit over the top, though I agree that it is regrettable act on the part of BBC.
Actually it is about the decision of the BBC to move from BC and AD to BCE and CE. The idea of the Common Era was introduced in the late nineteenth century by Jewish scholars, who obviously didn't want to say the Christ, the Messiah had come. I have a sympathy with them.
The problem is that use of the term "Common Era" is also problematic, if I were Chinese or Indian or from one of the ancient African civilisations, "Common Era" would smack of Western Imperialism, even more than BC and AD, it would not be my common era.
Being a little flippant why not have a choice of dates, the Jewish, "since the Creation of the World" the Muslim "since the Prophet", or we could use all those dating systems in the Christmas martyrology: Olympiads and so forth, or "since the Emperor ...." or "in the reign of ...". The problem is we would, if we are politically correct and inclusive we would spend reams of paper merely writing the date.

The problem is, and this my point, that merely for society to function we need to make assumptions; as for dates, so too for morality. Without these assumption we end up in an anarchic mess. I think this is what the Pope was saying when he spoke in Germany about Law and the rejection of the Divine Law reducing the Nazi government to a band of robbers.

Bishop Survey into Equalities Legislation

Our bishops are conducting a consultation into Equality Act Guidance for Catholics.

As a first step, we invite you to identify the particular issues which have arisen in your experience and on which you would have found guidance helpful. In responding, could you use the form below, or follow its headings.

Only the briefest indication of the issue of concern is needed, e.g. ‘Letting of Parish Halls to groups at variance with Catholic teaching’, or ‘Restricting advertised posts on the grounds of religion’, or ‘Limiting shared accommodation at retreat centres to married couples’.

When I try to download the form I get a warning that "downloading this file might damage my computer"! You try, the more participants the better.

Exorcists

Exorcism has been something which has come up on blogs from time to time.

In all of my time as priest I have known only one person I felt needed Exorcism and would have submitted to it willingly. It tends to be non-Catholics who request Exorcism more often than Catholics, often because they tend to be more superstitious than those who believe in Christ. In  Brighton, as presumably everywhere else the New Age and the occult can be very attractive but they both open up doors to the imagination which take people far from Christ. Hollywood and today's fad for horror doesn't help.

Catholics tend to need Confession and thus to receive Holy Communion in state of Grace and maybe have someone to do penance for them, and to pray of course.

The post-conciliar of the Rites for Christian Initiation of Adults has a series of optional Exorcisms for those preparing for baptism, performed by a priest or in some instances by a catechist. The ministry of Exorcist was before their abolition one the minor orders, and in ancient times was seen as an integral part of the process towards conversion and baptism. The biblical accounts of Exorcism seem to indicate the Lord using it as as a means of awakening faith. In the cases that were documented by Fr Joseph Crehan SJ, the polymath Westminster Exorcist up to the 1980s, Exorcism so often seems to be part of the process of conversion leading to baptism or reconciliation to the Church. It is worth reminding ourselves that the threefold renunciation of Satan as part of the renewal of baptismal promises is a minor Exorcism.

Every diocese should have an exorcist. One I know seems to be a charismatic who sees the devil at every turn and will Exorcise anyone at the drop of a hat, another simply says the whole thing is nonsense, and although he is deeply holy, at least in my opinion, he has never actually performed an Exorcism in the 20 years he has had the title. He would tend to describe people as "obsessed" by the the devil or evil rather than "possessed", which in most cases I am sure is true. In most cases, but not all.

The Rituale Romanum has a Rite of Exorcism, a major one, which is reserved to a Bishop, who may delegate its use to a particular priest, the diocesan Exorcist. Its very presence is an indication that if a diocese is thinking with the Church and believes in the principle of lex credendi lex orandi, Exorcism and the office of Exorcist should be taken seriously.

Perhaps their absence in so many dioceses is an indication of the lack of formation in classical spirituality and mystical theology today. Perhaps too their absence indicates a certain theological and liturgical rupture with the past, a deep tradition going back to the Lord.

The Pope on Assisi Three

The confusion created by the "Assisi" events caused, and perhaps continue to cause, Catholics a great deal of confusion, so much so that the only act of public disagreement between Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and Blessed Pope John Paul II was Ratzinger's pointed refusal to attend the previous events. It wasn't just a refusal but there were repeated public statements that it was a mistake and that it was odds with the CDF's document Dominus Jesus, written by Ratzinger in 2000.
Therefore the announcement that under this Pontificate there would be a third "Assisi" later this year surprised many.
Rorate publishes an extract of a letter to a Lutheran friend:

"I understand quite well - Benedict XVI wrote in March 4, 2011 - your concern regarding the participation at the Assisi meeting. However, this commemoration would have to have been celebrated in some way and, all things considered, it seemed to me that the best thing would be for me to personally go there being thus able to determine the direction of it all. I will nevertheless do everything in order that a syncretistic or relativistic interpretation of the event will be impossible and so that what will remain is that I will always believe and confess that which I had called to the attention of the Church with [the Declaration] 'Dominus Iesus'."

The problem will be not so much the address that the Pope will give but the pictures that will be shown. How will these ensure "a syncretistic or relativistic interpretation of the event will be impossible"?

Let's sign THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM?

Fr Z posted this, Modernisn is more alive today than it was 100 years ago, if you are Catholic why not sign the Oath in the comments, BUT read it through first! If you have blog put it up.

THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM

Given by His Holiness St. Pius X September 1, 1910.

To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.
I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:90), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated: Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time. Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord.
Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm. Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.
Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.
I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God.

Take the Vineyard from You

Our image of God the Father is important; it frames how we live our lives.
Today we tend to think of God as distant, maybe even disinterested, we model him on the virtues or otherwise of our society. Today even amongst believers God seems to be a doting, tolerant, semi senile grandfather.
For “the Jews”, the spiritual and secular leaders of Jesus’ own people, God is slow to act. Year after year they tend the vineyard, not for God but for themselves. In Matthews Gospel they have already questioned Jesus about his authority to act and speak as he does, the parables we are hearing during these Sundays are Jesus answer.
Jesus reminds them that God, the vineyard owner has been tending the vineyard, that he has indeed been sending the prophets, “the rent collectors” but they have been mistreated, even killed, by those who have charge of the vineyard, the tenants, [not their workers]. Ultimately they will kill the Son. All this said against the background of John the Baptists killing and the growing hostility to Jesus. Jesus understands what they intend to do to him.
The Jewish leaders here think they can carry on as they have been, God is distant for them, benign, tolerant. There is no judgement no retribution. But here Jesus gives a warning.
In the Gospels the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem is seen as a direct result of the rejection of Jesus. In the New Covenant God replaces the Temple with the Church.
Both Israel and the Church God promises never to reject, he is faithful to his promises, but this is still a warning to religious and secular leaders. The promise to the Church I will be with you to the end of time should not lead us to complacency. The great centres of the ancient Christianity have lost their importance, where is the church in Antioch or Alexandria, or even Constantinople once the centre of Eastern Christianity, now with just a few thousand resident Christians.
Even Rome itself has fallen from time to time; remember the time the papacy fled to Avignon. In recent times the “power base” of the Catholic Church has shifted from Europe to Africa and Asia. In theory it is possible that Bishop could live in Uganda or the Philippines or Korea.
The temptation for High Priests and Elders of the people is always complacency, if they do produce fruit in due season the vineyard will be taken from them and given to those who will bear fruit - is this what we are seeing in Ireland and Austria with so many priests and lay people in open schism?

Circumdederunt

This is one of the latest of Petar's videos. I have really put it up for a brother priest, who wrote to me today telling me of his pain and disappointment. He carries a bitter Cross.

Circumdederunt me gemitus mortis, dolores inferni circumdederunt me : et in tribulatione mea invocavi Dominum, et exaudivit de templo sancto suo vocem meam. (Ps. 17: 2,3 ) Diligam te, Domine, fortitude mea: Dominus firmamentum meum, et refugium meum, et liberator meus. V. Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto. Sicut erat in principio et nunc et semper et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.
The sorrows of death surrounded me, the sorrow of hell encompassed me : and in my affliction I called upon the Lord, and He heard my voice from His holy Temple. (Ps. 17: 2,3 ) I will love Thee, o Lord, my strength : the Lord is my firmament, my refuge, and my deliverer. V. Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost, as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen

Prayers for a Mum

At Easter I received a woman and her family into the Church, along with her young son and his older sister, she has severe special needs. She is seven and needs constant attention, at night especially she is restless, shouts and laughs and bangs on the wall wakes up her little brother, she throws her toys around, needs changing several times. I really don't think her mother has had a whole nights sleep since her birth. She was hoping that she might get some help from social services at night but none has been forthcoming yet.

Really she needs a bigger house as her daughter grows, she is in a private rented two up two down, with tiny rooms but she isn't a priority but there is actually nowhere for a carer to stay.

She loves her daughter to bits but like many parents in her situation she is bit afraid if she makes too many demands her daughter will be taken into care, she is exhausted and stressed, she asks for your prayers.

Her situation mirrors that of many other parents with handicapped children, so many are already under pressure, with proposed "cuts" they are really going to suffer. Pray for them all.

Pope's Example

My good friend, may he blog forever, Fr Z has a good letter from Bishop Dorran of Rockford on the reception of Holy Communion in which he seems to be advocating kneeling. In fact he is not being prescriptive, though he is advocating following the example of the Holy Father. "His practice is to distribute Holy Communion on the tongue of recipients who kneel as they receive communion. That should say something to all of us."
Here, following the recommendation of the Bishops during the Swine 'flu, H1N1, threat, we stopped distributing Holy Communion under both kinds. I have been slow to re-introduce it, for various reasons, in part because less than half the congregation received under both kinds, most ignored the chalice. We also had vagrants - presumably non-Catholics - coming in and draining the chalice at least once or twice a week, we also have quite a few alcoholics in the congregation. It is one of the consequences of our outreach work, through our souprun to homeless. Because  so many of our congregation are not from the English speaking world they are not conditioned to receive under both kinds and they haven't been catechised - trying to do so becomes a continuous process that simply becomes tedious. Another reason, is that three or four people, only, who have asked for the restoration of the chalice, have always couched it in term of "having the wine". Yet another reason was the aging of our extraordinary ministers, I found it almost impossible to get anyone under 40, with "a marked devotion to the Eucharist", who was willing to do it.
I feared very much for one woman's safety when quite correctly she refused communion from the chalice to a man who obviously much the worse for drink who had gone to her directly, without receiving the Host and demanded she, "Give us a ....... drink".
What we do here, in order to save time, and to give people time to recollect themselves, and for the elderly to steady themselves, is to give Holy Communion along the sanctuary step. Our Church isn't big so even at Christmas or Easter the distribution of Holy Communion takes no longer than five minutes, if the priest does the moving it is more reverent and takes half the time. The Communion queue takes so much time because people have to move, communicate reverently and move off. Although they are unsupported by a rail or anything about a quarter of the congregation at most Masses tend to kneel to receive or say they would like to if they were able. The few families we have seem to take pleasure in receiving communion alongside one another. What I have noticed too is that amongst young people especially there is a steady increase in those who kneel and receive on the tongue. Quite a few of our people have asked for the return of communion rails but there is an ideological opposition to them by those who have the power to allow them, or otherwise: "over my dead body", I've been told.
I know that what we are doing is not quite the norm in England and Wales but then I think it is a reasonable adaptation for our circumstances.

From a Corner of Archbishop's House

Far be it from me to report on one of those covert conversations held in a huddle in a corner of Westminster’s Archbishop’s House, let alone one held close to the throne, partly because I never over hear them normally.
But...
This one I was involved in, and yes there was a senior cleric or two involved, we were praising the Bishops of England and Wales for re-introducing “meatless Fridays”, my bishop came in for a great deal of praise. One of our number who has an enormous factory in his parish said a parishioner had reported a run on fish and chips and the veggie options had run out in the works canteen and that even the lapsed were being encouraged to abstain by their practising workmates. Another priest friend had said more or less the same before the Reception. I know from comments on the blog that in some places it hasn’t even been mentioned.
One priest said that he thought it was a bit of a shame that the motivation behind it was sociological, rather than ascetic, spiritual or liturgical.
A bishop said he thought it was a good thing that people were given the option of making a commitment to the Church over and above the Sunday Mass obligation, someone mention Holy Days and the bishop was called away.
A young layman joined us and the conversation moved to “Catholic identity” which was the stated reason for the re-introduction, looking around at the Ordinariate clergy, most were dressed in soutanes and fascias, he said we clergy could do a lot by dressing as priests and being seen as obviously Catholic priests, rather than simply as clergymen, in private and public.
One priest suggested bringing back the tonsure, maybe only partly frivolously. The conversation took a turn towards a criticism of the Seminaries for discouraging clerical dress until a seminarian actually becomes a cleric at the diaconate.
The conversation moved on to other areas that could underscore “Catholic identity”, mostly concerning the signs associated with the sacredness of the Holy Eucharist, kneeling for Holy Communion, seemed to be uppermost. From our little coetibus I was surprised how many priests seemed keen on the idea and had made provision. When we turned to re-orientating the Mass, no-one deferred, everyone said it was absolutely essential. When someone asked, the young layman I think, which of the clergy would be the first to do it, we all looked at our feet, except for an Ordinariate priest who said. “I’m doing it Sunday”.