I've read on several blogs now about St Francis' Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium and how people like me are going to be shocked, shocked I tell you!

Except of course we're not (or at least, I'm not) because we have actually seen the gospels and we do actually understand about the mercy of God, we've heard of forgiveness and we kinda noticed that Jesus seems kinda concerned about the poor.

No, I think the only people who will be suprised are the ones who the Church could change her teaching any time she likes and the only thing holding us back are those nasty people over there. The people who think that Pope Francis would churn out 47,000 words just to have a pop at traditionalists.

Personally, I'm reading this and I'm thinking "oh yeah, I could do that better, I hadn't thought of that" etc.. but if you want to really miss the point, try reading it with the assumption that any given parahgraph is aimed not at you, but at Those Nasty People Over There.

In other words.. try reading it like Austen Ivereigh..

Later (93-95) he critiques the “self-absorbed promethean neopalagianism” of self-appointed guardians of orthodoxy or traditional Catholicism who spend their time criticising fellow Catholics (“A supposed soundness of doctrine or discipline leads instead to a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism, whereby instead of evangelising, one analyses and classifies others, and instead of opening the door to grace, one exhausts his or her energies in inspecting and verifying”). He also criticises those who have “an ostentatious preoccupation for the liturgy, for doctrine and for the Church’s prestige, but without any concern that the Gospel have a real impact on God’s faithful people”

[link]

Note that Pope Francis doesn't refer to "self-appointed guardians of orthodoxy" or "traditional Catholicism" at all.. but he does warn about "carefully cultivated appearances" and "a business mentality, caught up with management, statistics, plans and evaluations whose principal beneficiary is not God’s people but the Church as an institution".

These paragraphs contain a warning for all Catholics to avoid an obsession with appearance at the expense of evangelisation and are just as much a warning to lefty Bishops Conference media quangos as they are to traditionalists.

When St Paul said "if I understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." was he speaking out against knowledge and faith? Clearly not. It's the "but have not love" part he's worried about. Similarly with Pope Francis, he's not having a pop at people who care about liturgy and doctrine - it's the "without any concern that the Gospel have a real impact on God’s faithful people" bit that matters.

Pope Francis warns that "supposed soundness of doctrine or discipline leads instead to a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism" and you can point that one at traditionalists if you like... but do Catholic Voices not claim soundness of doctrine?  Do they not engage in an authoritarian elitism? The special club of the trained and approved vs the excluded self-appointed nobodies.

I'm reading Pope Francis' words and thinking "maybe he has a point, maybe I could do some things better, I wonder if I am doing enough for the poor". Meanwhile Austen sounds like the Pharisee in the temple saying "God, I thank thee that I am not like other men".

If you want to know which part of Evangelii Gaudium really shocks me, it's this:

No one must say that they cannot be close to the poor because their own lifestyle demands more attention to other areas.

[link]

Yikes! I always thought the "busy being a dad" card could get me out of anything...

We could all be doing more for the poor, that's a given and I'm working on my own personal failings as I hope you are too, but please.. can we end the practice of using the poor as a human shield to defend heterdoxy.

Imagine a little kid chucking rocks through the church windows and smashing centuries old stained glass. A parishioner happens to be passing and says "hey! what are you doing?" to which the kid says "what are you? some kind of self appointed guardian? shouldn't you be more concerned about the poor?".

That's pretty much what is happening here.

The "Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?" card is as old as the hills. Yes, Jesus told people to care for the poor, but he also had no time anybody who would set love of the poor against love of Himself.

The poor are not a convenient tool to be used for point scoring at the service of particular ideologies within the Church, they are people and in my experience people are better served by beautiful liturgies than ugly ones and better served by the truth than by lies.

Using them as a stick to beat people who disagree with your claims that urging condom use is Catholic pastoral practice is, well, stooping pretty low.

The point of Catholic Voices, if I remember correctly, was to explain Church teaching in a clear way in "the public square". Is there anything clear about this highly misleading article?

Communion for the remarried: Vatican opens door to reform via annulments

An important statement by the head of the Vatican’s doctrinal congregation, the CDF, has reaffirmed existing church teaching on not admitting to the Eucharist Catholics who have remarried without first annulling their marriage.

But in the article in the Vatican’s official newspaper, Osservatore Romano,  Archbishop Gerhard Müller also opens the door to widening the grant of annulments in acknowledging that many couples nowadays enter marriage without a proper understanding of it as a permanent, binding union.

[http://cvcomment.org/2013/10/23/communion-for-the-remarried-vatican-opens-door-to-reform-via-annulments/]

Let's charitable assume that Austen Ivereigh isn't doing this on purpose. That he is trying to be clear and only failing by accident. Now pretend you're a busy newspaper editor who has no idea what an annulment is.

Let's read that headline again... "Communion for the remarried: Vatican opens door blah blah blah". Nice one.

Then we have the ludicrous suggestion that the prefect of the CDF "opens the door" to anything. The fact is that Archbishop Müller's article changes nothing. No doors have been opened. Acknowledging that many couples nowadays enter marriage without a proper understanding of it as a permanent, binding union makes no difference.

Canon Law already states clearly that if "either or both of the parties should by a positive act of will exclude marriage itself or any essential element of marriage or any essential property, such party contracts invalidly" (1101) and "A marriage subject to a condition about the future cannot be contracted validly" (1102)

Earlier this year Pope Benedict told the Tribunal of the Roman Rota that the requirement for a valid marriage "as a necessary minimal condition, is the intention to do what the Church does". He quoted Pope John Paul II who said (almost ten years ago) "an attitude on the part of those getting married that does not take into account the supernatural dimension of marriage  can render it null and void..."

Archbishop Müller is saying nothing new. He is shoulder to shoulder with Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and Francis. It is highly misleading to suggest that any "door to reform" is going to be opened "via annulments".

What does need to change is the attitude one finds in some parts of the Church that annulments are a way of cheating. That they ought to be as difficult to attain as possible because otherwise marriage will be undermined. That's nonsense. That's like saying cars would be less safe if it was easier to fail an MOT.

An annulment acknowledges the reality that there was no marriage. Popes John Paul II, Benedict and Francis (as well as Archbishop Müller) are talking only about the need for annulment tribunals to be aware that in modern times, not every Catholic couple actually has the foggiest idea about what the Church teaches regarding marriage and to properly apply existing canon law on that basis.

It's not a sneaky way to "reform" "Communion for the remarried" "via annulments".

Nice work if you can get it...

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 DECEMBER 2012 FOR CATHOLIC VOICES

...

Trustees
Dr A Ivereigh
J Valero
Rev P C Jamison
Miss L L Crowley
C J Morgan
A Fudakowski
M Clarkson

The charity has an Executive Committee comprising two trustees, Austen Ivereigh (chief executive) and Jack Valero (treasurer), and two consultants, Kathleen Griffin and Eileen Cole, who acts as media co-ordinator.

...

The charity also has an unpaid chaplain, Fr Stephen Wang.

...

Income for the year was £167,247 and came mainly from donations (£104,093) and training charged (£61,504).

Expenditure was £147,268 giving a net increase in funds for the year of £19,979.

Two of the trustees, Austen Ivereigh and Jack Valero, are members of the Executive Committee and were paid fees of £34,988 and £13,987 respectively for their services and in addition were paid £17,300 and £8,300 respectively for providing training services. These two trustees charge for organising events, carrying out research and briefing speakers, providing training and maintaining the Media Monitor. They do not charge for speaking on behalf of the charity, attending any of the Academy meetings or trustee meetings or for carrying out their duty as trustees. Their fees were £350 per day for services to Catholic Voices and £500 per day for external training services, and these were benchmarked against fees charged by third party consultants to the charity.

[link (pdf)]

A quick bit of adding up on my fingers would suggest that Austen Ivereigh pulled in £52,288 for his work with Catholic Voices last year. Not bad going. Meanwhile my blog actually costs me money to run in hosting fees. I'm clearly doing something wrong.

The question remains of course, where did they get £104,093 from? Who is funding them? Who is putting out the cash required to give Austen his platform for condom use as Catholic pastoral practice?

Ches over at The Sensible Bond is keen to emphasise that he has no intention of criticising Fr Stephen Wang. Now I agree that Fr Stephen Wang is a thoroughly nice chap and his CTS pamphlets are excellent, but I have to wonder what on earth is going on in his head.

You see, Fr Stephen Wang loudly supports Catholic Voices and takes every opportunity to promote them yet falls strangely silent when Austen Ivereigh tells the world that "urging a promiscuous infected person to at least use a condom" is "Catholic pastoral practice".

What was it Pope Leo XIII said...?

to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against truth, is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe. In both cases such mode of behaving is base and is insulting to God, and both are incompatible with the salvation of mankind. This kind of conduct is profitable only to the enemies of the faith, for nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good.

[link]

Ouch!

Yes, yes, I know, I know.. no doubt this is all part of a scheme to remain silent in the face of evil in order to try and fix things from the inside. I remember that part of the Gospels well.. the bit where Jesus kept his head down for several years in order to build up his reputation and become respectable among the pharisees. Oh wait...

Anyway, I've got distracted. I actually wanted to draw your attention to The Sensible Bond's rather excellent summary of Austen Ivereigh's recent, er, interpretation of the Papal interview.

Austen Ivereigh and his defence of the papal interview

Get over there and check it out!

I've had a few emails this morning from Catholic Voices who are outraged at my suggestion that Jack and Austen are using Catholic Voices as a platform to promote the view that condoms should be promoted to those suffering with HIV.

Austen Ivereigh spelled it out quite clearly on his blog at America Magazine that "the use of condoms to prevent the transmission of Aids is not contraception, and therefore morally licit if the intention is to prevent infection" and elsewhere that "urging a promiscuous infected person to at least use a condom -- assuming that they are not ready or willing or able (and remember, many prostitutes in Africa sell their bodies to feed their children) -- is Catholic pastoral practice."

Jack Valero has been on TV as a Catholic Voice where he said "The Church is not against condoms" and explained that while "the Church is against contraception of course" "we're talking here about HIV, no the Church is against contraception."

There is no doubt that Austen and Jack both hold the view that the Church is against contraception in Marriage, but not against the use of condoms in combating HIV. There is no doubt that they have been using the Catholic Voices project as a platform to promote this view.

So what? Say the Catholic Voice Volunteers... I don't personally agree with them... It's not fair to say that we all agree with them...

Many Catholic Voices Volunteers disagree with the view that the Church tells us to be "urging" people to "at least use a condom" and this is being put forward as evidence that clearly Austen and Jack are not brainwashing them all and that silly James Preece chap has it all wrong because Catholic Voices Volunteers are free to think anything they like.

Only that's not really the problem at all. Yes, of course it's obvious that individual Catholic Voices Volunteers are free to hold different opinions. This is the semi-official maybe-authoritative blessed-by-the-Bishops-but-they-can't-be-held-responsible media organisation of the broad-tent Church of Vincent who-knows-what's-down-the-road Nichols. Of course people are allowed to think what they like.

Except on one thing.. the only thing that really matters here..

You see, Jack and Austen don't actually need to get everybody to agree with them about the "urging" thing. All they actually need to do is convince everybody that this is (as Peter D Williams put it) an "intra-Catholic issue".

If they can get it out of the things Catholics are forbidden to believe box and in to the stuff that's up for discussion box then their work is done. Cafod can do out and distribute condoms and when people like me kick off about it, well, it's an open question isn't it and we're just trying to force our "vision of Church" on everybody else, or something..

Unless there is a Catholic Voice out there who is willing to stand up in public and say that actually, no, this isn't an "intra-Catholic" issue, the Church doesn't teach that Catholics should be "urging" people to "at least use a condom" and that promoting that view in public is at least as bad as anything that nasty James Preece fellow might have said about the Bishops Conference..

Unless there is a Catholic Voice who is willing to say that people who hold that view really shouldn't be running international media operations on behalf of the Church.

Well, frankly, they are part of the problem.

It's interesting how history repeats itself... 

A few years ago one Austen Ivereigh was the victim of false allegations in the Daily Mail. A newspaper called the Catholic Herald took those allegations at face value a printed them - an easy mistake to make. However, as the allegations turned out not to be true the Catholic Herald were forced to issue an apology and to pay damages to Austen Ivereigh.

That's only fair you see because the information they published damaged Austen Ivereigh's career and also caused him considerable personal inconvenience and distress. It's only right that those who make the mistake pay for the damage. Kids who smash windows with footballs and newspapers alike.

Fast forward a few years to the present day where "traddies" have just been the victims of false allegations of "gloom mongering". Statistics were published by the National Office for Vocation and an organisation called Catholic Voices took those statistics at face value and published them - an easy mistake to make. However, as the statistics turned out not to be true the Catholic Voices were forced to issue an apology and... oh wait.

It doesn't look like Catholic Voices plan to pay any damages.

Having slandered "traddies" with allegations of "gloom mongering", having forced Joseph Shaw, Stephen Morgan and others to spend valuable time on the tedious process of looking up information from numerous old paper directories, plotting charts, writing blog posts and so. Having caused inconvenience "traddie" community" they don't think they owe anything for the damage.

Maybe they think that because it was a mistake, therefore they shouldn't have to pay for the damage? Kids who smash windows with footballs and Catholic Voices alike. Personally, I think a cheque made payable to the Latin Mass Society is in order. I'm sure Austen Ivereigh, who coordinates the Catholic Voices project, would agree?

Somebody will point out that Austen Ivereigh was the victim of serious allegations, that he suffered considerable personal distress and invonvenience over several years and that the damage here is nowhere near on the same scale.

Very well then. Send a cheque that is nowhere near on the same scale.

Somebody else will argue that Austen Ivereigh had a legal right to damages and that the "traddie" community perhaps hasn't. So what? I'm sure there's something in the Gospels about doing the right thing even when the law doesn't force you to.

If Austen Ivereigh and his Catholic Voices want to argue that mistakes are mistakes, that an apology is adequate reparation and that nobody should have to compensate anybody for the time and and effort put in to setting things right... well...

That would be very interesting to see...

Not so very long ago a boring, sheltered, stuffy, regal, distant, conservative Pope who never ever did anything radical sat down for a book length interview and explained to the world that condoms are wonderful and their use should be urged.

Remember that one?

I do. Though I remember it slightly differently. I remember that Pope Benedict said that "in the intention" (e.g. not in the condom) there was "a first step in the direction of" (e.g. not an arrival at) "toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed". Note that the awareness is moved towards something.

This is a million miles from saying that the act itself is made good by the presence of a condom, or that adding a condom to the act is a good thing. In fact, to make himself extra clear, Pope Benedict added that condom use "is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection" and that condoms were not to be regarded as "a real or moral solution".

Properly understood I thought that was quite reasonable, though it was a bit naive of Benedict to think he could say something so subtle without his words being abused.

Within hours, the BBC headline read "Pope condones condom use" and our friend Austen Ivereigh went on to say that "urging a promiscuous infected person to at least use a condom" was now "Catholic pastoral practice."

Note the contradiction - Pope Benedict said condom use was not "a real or moral solution". Austen Ivereigh heard those words and thought "ah, I get it - condom use must be Catholic pastoral practice". This is a man who, if you believe the rumours, can even tie his own shoelaces.

That didn't suprise me. What suprised me was that people believed him. All over the blogs I saw normally sensible Catholics wailing and saying "Benedict has said condoms ar okay, he must have done, because The Tablet and the BBC say so". Nobody seemed to be looking at what Benedict actually said in the first place.

Please guys, don't fall for it again.

I mention this because Ivereigh and the gang are once again in full spin mode with their stories of limousines "shunned" and thrones "ignored". Give me a break. I don't deny that Pope Francis rode on the bus with the other cardinals and chose to greet them standing.. but shunning? ignoring?

Those meanings were added by the man who took "not a real or moral solution" and turned it in to "Catholic pastoral practice".

Then they tell us Pope Francis "spontaneously" stroked a dog. Stroking a dog? Ooooh how down to earth, how radical. Because, as the fathers of the Birmingham Oratory will tell you - Pope Benedict never ever made spontaneous gestures toward animals. Or was tickling a cat behind the ears while saying "aren’t you pretty, aren’t you pretty?" not spontaneous enough?

If we are not careful, there is a real danger that everything Pope Francis does will be reported through a lens, so that what we experience through the media in England will not be the papacy of Pope Francis, but the papacy of Ivereigh, Pepinster and Mickens.

You have the internet - read Pope Francis's words directly. See what he is saying and please: Don't believe the lie that Pope Benedict was a stuffy, distant, regal Pope who always stuck to protocol. He wasn't and he didn't - but these people will re-write history if you let them.

Don't let them get away with it.

It's been a while now since Pope Benedict's words in "Light of the World" about condoms. I did not personally find them very troubling because it was clear what Pope Benedict was saying, I was however troubled by the spin put out by people who wanted to claim he was saying something else. I ended up thinking that perhaps we would have been better off if he had said nothing on the matter at all.

By way of a reminder, he said...

Pope Benedict: There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection.

Peter Seewald: Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?

Pope Benedict: She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.

[link]

If we read the words in the proper order we see that Pope Benedict qualifies his sentences very well. He speaks only of a "first step" or "a movement toward" (e.g. not an arrival at a destination) and he refers to "intentions" and not actions. In short, he is a million miles from saying "using a condom to prevent aids is okay"

Of course, some people find that if they throw all these words in a pan and fry them up they can make an ommelette with the word "moral" and the word "condom" in the order they want.

Dr Austen Ivereigh for example, took the Pope's words (and the resulting CDF clarification) to mean this...

There is an important line in the CDF's clarification which is likely to pass unnoticed but which is, I believe, central to the Vatican strategy -- and I am sure it is a strategy -- for breaking the ice over this issue. It is that Pope Benedict's words do not signify any change "in the pastoral practice of the Church".

In other words, urging a promiscuous infected person to at least use a condom -- assuming that they are not ready or willing or able (and remember, many prostitutes in Africa sell their bodies to feed their children) -- is Catholic pastoral practice. That pastoral counsel is the beginning of a journey, as the Pope says -- the start of choosing life over death, morality over immorality.

[link]

See that? Urging condom use is "Catholic pastoral practice", as I said at the time never have I seen such flagrant abuse of the phrase "in other words".

The Pope's words above relate specifically to the intentions of somebody who chooses a wrong method but at least is taking the first step towards realising there might be a right choice. Dr Ivereigh thinks that means we should urge people to use the wrong method.

Anyways, I mention all this today because while the above has been spread far and wide by the promoters of ambiguity, Dr Ivereigh and co have been strangely silent about the following which was recently submitted to the United Nations by the Holy See...

The Holy See reaffirms its reservations with the Resolution, especially regarding its references to “sexual and reproductive health” since the Holy See does not consider abortion or abortion services to be a dimension of such terms and regarding the term “family planning” as the Holy See in no way endorses contraception or the use of condoms, either as a family planning measure or in HIV/AIDS prevention programmes.

[link]

In other words (ahem) the Holy See does not endorse contraception or the use of condoms in HIV/AIDS prevention programmes.

Strange - if urging condom use is Catholic pastoral practice then why on earth is the Holy See going to the trouble of telling the UN that the use of condoms in HIV/AIDs prevention programmes is in no way endorsed?

I didn't have time to write about this at the time because my daughter was in hospital but it has been very interesting to observe the evolution of the Catholic Voices narrative on same-sex marriage.

Ella Leonard appeared on the BBC news back in September and attempted to defend the Catholic Church's teaching on marriage. Not many people would volunteer to go on TV and talk about gay marriage so I have to give Ella Leonard full marks for courage.

The low point is at 3:00 when she says "it's only a word".

Marriage is not "only a word".

Ella Leonard stuck to the narrative for the first half of the interview saying "specific meaning" and "a man and a woman" over and over again until even she was beginning to laugh. To Ella's credit, the interview improved dramatically when she finally went off message (3:34) and said...

"I'm a Catholic it won't surprise you to know that I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman to bring up children to bring children in to the world to bring them up in a way that is useful for society as well as useful for them to develop their faith to develop as good members of society I think that is what marriage is for"

You can see that Ella Leonard has done her homework, she knows the exact year that the 2006 civil partnership act came out, she knows that marriage is mentioned in the universal declaration of human rights. Therefore I find it hard to believe she simply forgot to mention children for most of the interview - either Ella Leonard is very forgetful or else children didn't feature very high up in the Catholic Voices defence of marriage.

I can only think that Catholic Voices themselves had a rethink because a couple of weeks later Austen Ivereigh appeared on Channel 4 news to discuss same-sex marriage. This time the narrative has shifted considerably (skip to 1:00)...

Austen Ivereigh begins by saying "at the heart of the defence of marriage is the biological union of a man and a woman issuing forth in children who are then brought up by those parents this is a uniquely beneficial institution for children" he goes on to demonstrate excellent eye-brow technique around the 3:25 mark.

Unfortunately, even the eyebrows can't avoid a spectacular own goal towards the end of the interview when he says that "gay people bring up children and are very loving and very caring, there are lots of ways of bringing up children which are good and loving and caring". I dare say they are loving and caring, but are they what is best?

So close and yet so far.

You see - the very reason why marriage is such a "uniquely beneficial institution for children" is that it is designed to ensure as many children as possible grow up with a mummy and a daddy because that is what is best for children. That's not just a Catholic view or even just a religious view, that's been the view of countless societies and cultures for thousands of years of human history. Homosexual marriage harms children because it promotes situations in which children grow up without a mummy or a daddy.

Yet in 2009 Terry Prendergast, the executive director of Catholic Marriage Care said very publicly that "there is no evidence that suggests that children do best with heterosexual couples" Archbishop Vincent Nichols, said nothing. He also did nothing and Terry Prendergast remained executive director of Catholic Marriage Care. "Qui tacet consentire": the maxim of the law is "Silence gives consent".

If you were wondering when the argument over gay marriage was lost, that was it.

This is where the Catholic Voices find themselves between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand they don't want to contradict the Archbishop and his silent approval of Prendergast's views. On the other hand they saw how the iron first of tolerance smashed the adoption agencies and they don't want to see a repeat performance.

Who knows what's down the road?

The handy search feature on the shiny new Catholic Voices website makes it really easy to find out what the project is all about, as well as what it isn't about...

Meanwhile, a search on there for Austen Ivereigh returns five pages of results, that's because Catholc Voices is all about him.