Friday, 2 June 2017

One Answer Fits All?

In today’s Culture of Death & Destruction Catholicism gives one answer to many pastoral situations in regard to receiving the sacraments:
“I am divorced and civilly married to a new spouse…may I go to Holy Communion?”
“I am cohabiting because I think it is as good as marriage…may I go to Holy Communion?”
“I am in a homosexual relationship…may I go to Holy Communion?”
 “I am contracepting…may I go to Holy Communion?”
“I am living a transgender life…may I go to Holy Communion?”

The answer Catholicism gives is this: You are living a life contrary to the Truth (The Faith), so you are called to refrain from Holy Communion until you end your current lifestyle. Keep praying, keep performing acts of charity, and keep up acts of self-sacrifice so as to build the grace you need to come home. The Church will accompany you in this.

Sadly, it seems we are now expected to give a different answer: You are living a life contrary to the Truth (The Faith), so you are called to refrain from Holy Communion until you end your current lifestyle. However, as long as you believe you are at rights with God, you are welcome to receive Holy Communion.”

This is the kind of answer we now seem expected to give by liberal priests and Bishops ever since Francis made his famous “Who am I to judge?” statement. Well, no one asked Francis to judge anyone -but we did expect him to give the same judgement of a person’s actions that the Faith has always given: such lifestyles are anathema to God since they contravene His Truth and thus endanger the person’s salvation; we do not judge or reject any persons but are obliged to warn them of all we believe is harmful to them. We do not impose our teaching on anyone (a person’s own ability to reason should do this), but neither can we approve of contrary lifestyles.

Sadly, what we are seeing in the Church today, on the pretext of ‘accompanying people”,  is the eradication of Catholicism in pastoral practice by what I call ‘pastoral sentimentality’: tending to feelings at the expense of applying doctrine. Pastoral Sentimentality is where Doctrine is left intact but also left aside so as to tend to the emotional pain of the person rather than attend to their supremely important spiritual need. Pastoral sentimentality allows folk to receive Holy Communion while living a lifestyle that is contrary to the Truths of The Faith, which is sacrilegious, and we out not to be encouraging sacrilegious communions. Sadly, ‘Pastoral Sentimentality’ has been the way of the Church for five or six decades now. It has been the way and teaching of so many seminary professors, clergy and theologians. Thus today’s problems do not really stem from Pope Francis; so far, all Francis has done is use his papal authority to implement it (to the detriment of souls), without trying to formally impose new teaching. There is a massive deception going on here: leave doctrine formally untouched but change pastoral practice so that in years to come anew ‘theology’ (heresy) can be promoted based on’ the practice of the Church’. I think we are only at the beginning of the struggle for the integrity of the Church.
 

It is not Francis faithful Catholics must fight but Moral Relativism and Situation Ethics. However, since Francis is at least tolerating it if not approving ‘Pastoral sentimentality’ under the label of ‘mercy’, we must if necessary confront him, which he says himself he values, as reported by Catholic Culture here https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?id=1410 :

“It’s good to be criticized. I have always liked this.” That’s good to know. What a relief to think that all those stories we’ve been hearing—about the Vatican officials called in for tongue-lashing because they had expressed criticism of the Holy Father, the staff members of the CDF summarily dismissed for the same reason—must be wrong. And the angry speeches to the Roman Curia must have been misreported and/or misinterpreted.
But that’s not all. Pope Francis went on to tell the religious superiors: “And when criticisms make you grow, I accept them, and reply.”

We must be grateful that Francis has not formally taught any heresies, but we cannot be pleased that in today’s Church today the living out of the Faith is thrown away and lifestyles tolerated (if not actually promoted) that are contrary to The Truth –which is a following of the Father of Lies as opposed to the following of Truth. The world speaks well of those who accept its ways, but “woe unto you who the world speaks well of” (LK.6v26) –indeed it would better they have “a millstone placed around their necks and be thrown into the sea” (Lk.17v2). I think that if we did this, we’d have very few clergy left in the Church from top to bottom, and I suspect few in the pews too, since for many today the common good and social equality is all that seems to matter.

We are asked to accept ‘pastoral sentimentality’ as a gift of mercy from the ‘god of surprises’ –but there is not such god. The Blessed Trinity proclaims “I am the Lord, I change not” (Mal.3v6), while St Paul tells us God is “the same yesterday, today and forever” (Heb.13v8). We must then, refuse to accept “the god of surprises”. Scripture says: “I am astonished how quickly you are deserting the One who called you by the grace of Christ, and are turning to a different gospel which is not even a gospel. For some people are troubling you and trying to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be anathema” (Gal.1v6-8). We must not follow the new god and the new gospel and thus become anathema to Almighty God by casting away His Truth. We all have enough sins to be ashamed of -sins which arise from our weakness and concupiscence- without adding to them the deliberate choosing of lifestyles contrary to The Truth, thereby choosing instead to follow the father of lies.

Let us pray and make sacrifices that the Church may return to the living out of the Gospel. Currently, the Church is paying hypocritical lip-service to the Gospel by saying one thing while doing another. If anyone is the hypocrite Pope Francis so deplores it is those who say the one thing while doing another: ignoring Truth in so-called ‘pastoral practice’ where any lifestyle goes. Well-meaning seminary professors and ‘pastoral priests’ of both presbyteral & episcopal rank have surely sown darnel among the Lord’s crop. But we must not fear: the avenging angels are coming; the darnel will be rooted out and God’s Eternal Truth will once again flourish. Just be prepared to be the Sword of Truth that the angels wield; be prepared to speak up for the Truth and point out the errors you see around you in gentle, respectful but firm and clear manner.

Sadly, while the Church is in a bad sate, but there may be more to come: St Thomas tells us the punishment for sin is more sin: (Summa, Q.87#2) “Sin can be [accidentally but not essentially] the punishment for sin…” so we may as yet have to drink to the dregs the poisoned chalice we have fermented over the last 50 years. One day, however, that poisoned chalice will be dry and we will once again drink from the water which flows from Christ and wells up to eternal life.

Allowing a soul to live contrary to the Truth is dangerous to those who live that way -and to those who affirm it: they are like physicians who for fear of hurting the patient, reassures them that the malignant tumour is a only benign growth and leaves them to die from it. They are negligent, and perhaps even malignant forces who teach the new gospel of the god of surprises.

Friday, 19 May 2017

Urgent Prayer Request -updated

Of your charity, please pray for a young pro-life Doctor who has suffered a catastrophic stroke and been declared unlikely to recover. At the moment it appears she is being sustained only by mechanical ventilation ('life support'). I have asked God for His graces of strength, hope and peace for Doctor R., her family, and her friends, and for the graces of insight, skill and compassion for the health professionals who care for her. Let us commend Dr. R to the care of Our Blessed Lord and to the intercession of Our Lady, Health of the Sick. Thank you for your prayers.

UPDATE. I am informed that the good doctor has died without any recovery. Please pray for her soul and for the comforting of her family and friends. 

Saturday, 13 May 2017

Reflections On Fatima

Those who know me well know that I am very attached to the shrine of Lourdes, having been called to love the Blessed Virgin in her love for humanity ever since seeing “The Song of Bernadette” when I was an 8 year old nominal Anglican. Its message is much the same as Fatima: “Penance, Penance, Penance. Pray to God for the conversion of sinners”. I grew frustrated with those who would not travel to Lourdes because Fatima seemed so much more exciting with its ‘Miracle of the Sun’; I felt they sought the miraculous more than hearing the message, and sought earthly peace more than peace with God. But today we celebrate Fatima, and it is right that we note that while Lourdes is known as “Land of the Gospel”, this applies equally to Fatima, and on the say that Jacinta and Francisco are canonised, it is right that we recall Fatima in a blog posting.

Fatima is a call to trust in the mercy of God by returning to Him via penance, for Our Lady said, "Men must amend their lives, and ask pardon for their sins. . . . They must no longer offend Our Lord, Who is already so much offended." As Sr. Lucia is said, "The good Lord is allowing Himself to be appeased."  The message of Fatima is indeed one of peace for the world, but peace in grace of God and not merely the absence of war, and that peace is obtained by the amending of our lives by the grace of God. What strikes me today about the message of Fatima is the symbolic place of Lucia, Jacinta and Francisco.

Lucia was to stay on earth and promote the message of Our Lady, which has as a central core the recitation of the daily Rosary. This prayer, so reviled by many Protestants, is entirely scriptural and Gospel-centred. Its prayers (the Our father and the Hail Mary) are taken from the texts of the Gospel; its mysteries are the Person and the Mysteries of Christ our saviour, from the Incarnation to the Ascension. To learn to love Our Lord one need do no more than contemplate Him and his Life in the company of His Blessed Mother by the reciting of the Holy Rosary. Thus, Lucia shows us the necessity to meet Christ in the scriptures and live in the company of His Holy Mother, whom all generations are to call Blessed.

Jacinta is known for her prayer and sacrifices for the Holy Father, to whom the vision was given of the Holy Father in prayer with all the people. She reminds us of the need to maintain out union with the Vicar of Christ on earth, and of the need to pray for the conversion of sinners, something with which she was said to be obsessed.

Francisco, who once, when missing, was found praying, said, “I was thinking of God who is so sad because of all the sins: if only I could comfort him!”, is known for his desire to console the Heart of Jesus, which is supremely found in this world in the Most Blessed Sacrament. As Francisco said after having received his first (and last) Holy Communion, “When will you bring me the Hidden Jesus again?” He is said to have exclaimed, “Soon Jesus will come and take me to heaven with Him and then I shall always be able to comfort Him.”

Thus we can see in the Fatima the whole of the Gospel message: first of all, modelling our lives upon that of the Good Lord whom we meet in scripture (and which we pray by/in the holy Rosary) with the living out of the Gospel by a life of prayer and penance; second, devotion to the Lord’s most Holy Mother who accompanies us in meeting Her Divine Son when we recite the Rosary; third, loyalty to the Vicar of Christ, and of course, adoration and worship of the Heart of Jesus in the Most Holy and Blessed Sacrament.

May Our Lady of Fatima intercede for the Holy Church of Her Divine Son, that we may remain faithful to His teaching and the living out of His Commands by the grace of the Holy Ghost who is given to us.

Sunday, 19 March 2017

Clergy Take Care; Laity Beware

This post is to compact the previous post, ‘Laity Beware’ and to underline the fact that since I have contacts the length and breadth of the country via Catholic organisations and social media, it is not advisable for readers to enter into speculation as to the Diocese, parish and individuals concerned. In brief the facts of my post were as follows:

  • ‘X’ was a long-standing catechist under two former parish priests
  • ‘X’ had taught the children that although it was allowable to receive Holy Communion on the hand the norm is to show God respect by receiving on the tongue, offering this to the children as something they might like to do for God. In ten years no child had declined, but some parishioners were unhappy that the norm was being presented.
  • ‘X’ met with their new pastor and was told to continue his/her preparations for providing the First Communion preparation course but then had his/her initial meeting with parents cancelled from the pulpit without explanation on the day the meeting was announced in the Bulletin.
  • ‘X’, on querying this with the pastor after Mass, was told the pastor would ‘get back on that’, but didn’t do so.
  • ‘X’ was covertly excluded from the First Communion preparation programme, only discovering it had actually begun when the children were presented at Sunday Mass some weeks later.
  • To avoid public dispute and wounding of the pastor, ‘X’ wrote to him privately, asking the reason for his/her furtive exclusion and having his/her first preparation meeting publicly derailed at Mass. ‘X’ received a reply of three to four lines saying ‘your concerns have been noted’ but making no response to those concerns.
  • When at an open meeting of the parish a parishioner stated the pastor had been ‘receiving hassle’, the pastor said it had all come about because he had spoken to ‘X’ (naming ‘X’) about First Communions saying to continue on but had now decided that ‘was not for the best’.
  • The Bishop was present at this open meeting and did not defend the good name of ‘X’ at any point. His only comment was that ‘more people need to be involved now’, thereby allowing the impression that ‘X’ had been monopolising lay roles. 


‘X’ felt as though s/he had been on the receiving end of prejudice and poor handing by the clergy, thus the stated purpose of the post remains: to advise clergy taking up new appointments -and Bishops who make those appointments:

Pastors should take a year or more to get to know the personalities in any new appointment so as to avoid making changes on the strength of tittle-tattle (be it from teachers, medics or other persons who, despite having professional qualifications, remain subject to the self-interest we call sin). Failure to do this means the pastor can be being drawn into personality clashes and/or attempts by individuals to achieve prominence/dominance (the need to be ‘big fish’ -but in a very small pond!)
Bishops should avoid being drawn into such dynamics early on and becoming the proverbial sledgehammer.

Bishops and Pastors might ask themselves if those who have the pastor’s ear have a history of complaining about former pastors, as it may indicate they are now taking the opportunity with a weaker pastor, to monopolise lay roles themselves and to re-make the parish to their own liking, thereby making of the pastor (at worst) their puppet, or at best their obedient child/servant, with consequential removal of his integrity.

Monday, 13 March 2017

Laity Beware

In conversation recently I was privy to some unsettling information about how badly we laity can be treated for simply being ‘Catholic’. I cannot name the Diocese in which these events took place; the parish or any individual persons, since that would bring persons into disrepute and would lack in charity. ‘X’ is allowing me to share the events only because s/he feels clergy can learn from them.

The information concerns a catechist (‘X’) who has been working in that capacity for 16 years under two successive parish priests. It is true that ‘X’ was unconventional by today’s standards: s/he would instruct the children that while it was legitimate to receive Our Lord in Holy Communion in the hand, the norm was still to show God great reverence by receiving Him on the tongue, preferably kneeling, asking the children if they would like to give this reverence to God. No child had refused in the previous ten years; all were happy to do so and many continued on for some years (except when at Mass in School –and why that was the case can only be a matter of speculation). It is also true that the previous pastor had refused permission to the school to use the sanctuary as a stage for an interpretative dance on First Holy Communion day, and since ‘X’ had supported this, it may have created a negative image of ‘X’ that played into these events.

When a new pastor was appointed ‘X’ asked to meet with him to determine how he wanted the First Holy Communion programme to run. The pastor, having been shown a copy of the materials used by ‘X’, and informed that the school provided the bulk of the instruction in at least weekly sessions (while the parish did only a monthly session), and that on the day of First Holy Communions the school would provide the music, the readers and offertory bearers (with the parish supplying only the servers and the Communion breakfast), ‘X’ was told to go on as before.

As such ‘X’ followed the established pattern of putting a note in the Bulletin calling a meeting for the parents of interested children. On the Sunday this was published the new pastor announced at the Notices at Mass that the meeting was cancelled so that the school could be more involved, but did not approach ‘X’ before or after Mass; and when approached by ‘X’ to ask what was going on simply said, “I’ll get back to you”. Then, on a Sunday in January, the children already in preparation by the school –a fact unknown to ‘X’– were presented to the parish at Sunday Mass. Not wanting to cause public upset ‘X’ wrote privately to the pastor asking why s/he had been cut out of the loop (so to speak); saying s/he felt the way things had been done was furtive; that it lacked transparency, and was damaging to his/her good name, s/he having been visibly sidelined by the public cancelling of the meeting. S/he also noted that it was hard to know how the school could be more involved, given the extent of their involvement (as noted above).  A three-line reply was received from the pastor saying thank you for your letter and “your concerns have been noted”, but no explanation was offered. ‘X’ replied by noting that his/her concerns had not been addressed, but this resulted the following Sunday in an announcement (at the Notices during Mass) that there was to be an open parish meeting with the Bishop the following Sunday.

At that meeting one of the parishioners said the pastor had been receiving hassle (though how they would know about the existence of private correspondence is anyone’s guess); the Bishop stated that the parish was to support its new pastor and that more people need to be involved now, while the pastor himself said the meeting had come about because he “had told ‘X’ (actually naming the catechist) to go on as before, then thought that was not for the best”. This left ‘X’ feeling publicly disparaged, so s/he made the decision to write to the local Episcopal Vicar, the Vicar General and the Bishop to say how hurt and disturbed s/he was by the sequence of events and the way the meeting had been handled, since it publicly named him/her and indeed left him/her all-but labelled a problem.

At any rate, replies to ‘X’s letter from the Bishop and the EV were once again three-line replies stating nothing more than “we acknowledge receipt of your letter” -not even that “the concerns had been noted”. At no stage was an attempt made by any of the clergy to dialogue on the issues or to seek reconciliation, though these are quite the ‘buzz words’ at the moment. In that workplace bullying might be described as “a blame culture, and the tolerating of aggressive behaviour”; where bullying can be verbal and nonverbal, creating feelings of humiliation and defencelessness with an undermining of the individual’s dignity, it might be said that ‘X’ experienced workplace bullying in that s/he was sidelined publicly from the pulpit; had his/her concerns left unexplained and was publicly named at an open meeting in the context of “someone causing hassle”.

There is perhaps an excuse for the Bishop in that he may have been given erroneous information, for ‘X’ had been Parish Bookkeeper and Vulnerable Persons Link Person as well as Catechist, and it might have seemed that there was a monopolising of lay roles here, yet the reality is that several parishioners there generously gave of their time and in multiple roles –indeed a quarter of those attending Mass there have an active role in the parish. I have seen the list displayed in the parish hall of all parishioners who undertake tasks (which range from Fundraising via coffee mornings and raffles through Piety Shop Manager, Gardening and Cleaning Teams to more formal roles of Annual Financial Returns Officer, Buildings Manager, Gift Aid Officer and Housebound Visitors) so there was no monopolising of roles by ‘X’. That said, while the Bishop may not have been aware of the extent of lay involvement in the said parish, the same cannot be said for the Pastor who either failed to determine the extent of lay involvement in his new parish, or simply failed to disclose it to the Bishop before seeking a meeting with him and the parish. Perhaps the excuse we might make for the pastor is that very early in his time in the parish he gave his ear to those who appeared professional and integrated, and was swayed by them.

Conceivably, the cause of all this may simply be that ‘X’ was excluded in order to eliminate the Reception of Holy Communion on the tongue and to include so-called ‘liturgical dance’ to the First Communion Mass, or simply that the group from 25 years ago sought ways to return to prominence by getting the new pastor’s ear. Interestingly, within a month of arriving the new pastor asked if the collections at the Old Rite Mass (requested by a group of parishioners on the publication of Summorum Pontificum) were being sent to the LMS or kept for the parish; ‘X’ pointed out that they had always gone to the parish as it was a parish Mass, not an LMS Mass –but one wonders why the new pastor would have thought otherwise in that this was a Mass asked for by a parish group and attended mainly by parishioners (about 6 or 8 people attended from outside the area).

What this scenario sadly shows us is that Catholic laity cannot expect to receive support from their local Catholic pastor or the local Catholic Bishop in the promotion of ‘the Faith we have received’. Perhaps it is not out of place to say that one may not even expect to receive the support of Rome, since we have seen a lot of changes in the last fifty years.

Sadly, ‘X’ has now disengaged from his/her parish. My purpose in writing this Post is, fundamentally, to encourage clergy to consider not making any changes to their new parish in the first year of an appointment, and to take that time to get to know the characters of the parish. Had the new pastor done so he may have become aware of the actual extent of lay participation in the parish; avoided falling into furtive behaviours and into naming individuals at a public meeting of the parish in the context of being ‘hassled’. Clergy might also like to consider that those who carry tales and complaints to them (no matter what their profession: teacher, medic, lawyer) are often the ones to be avoided -professionals are not immune to the human frailties that affect us all, and can still be inclined to bring others down so as to achieve their own ends or a position of higher prominence. Bishops might like to reflect on the fact that handing over too much responsibility to laity does not empower but disempowers the many at the hands of the few. What is needed is the promotion of priestly vocations, not a clericalising of those who dominate among the laity. What inordinate ‘lay ministry’ can do is set up disempowerment and division amongst the laity, while creating a clergy who fail to become Fathers to the parish and thereby unable to care for the common good, having lost control of the parish to those laity who wrangle best.

Friday, 3 March 2017

Writing about Pope Francis

When reading about Francis there are two main factions one wanders into. There is the faction that fears not to describe him in uncomplimentary terms, with the authors sometimes described as lacking in charity (perhaps they are just full of frustration and distaste at his papacy?); there is another faction that almost canonises the man as the greatest thing since Francis of Assisi if not since Christ Himself. There are days when each of these factions expresses might one’s feelings. It is therefore a joy to read articles that simply look over the papacy of Francis without falling into either  a lack of charity or a canonising of Francis. I therefore thoroughly enjoyed the article by Pete Baklinski on Lifesite News partially entitled ‘They gave Pope Francis four years to make the Church over’. This is one of the easiest and clearest pieces written on Francis I have read. Another article I enjoyed, also on Lifesite News and written by Phil Lawler, is entitled ‘This Disastrous Papacy’.

Baklinski notes
In his October 2013 speech to the Catholic students of Villanova University, Cardinal McCarrick ended his panegyric of Pope Francis by comparing him to the “Pied Piper of Hamelin.”
“He will walk across the stage of the world and people will follow him. They will find in him like they found in the Pied Piper of Hamelin, they will find in him a certain charism, that reminds them that this is what God's love is all about. And this is what Francis is all about,” he said.
McCarrick surely didn’t realize how disturbing the comparison was. According to the children’s tale, when the town’s families refused to pay the piper for ridding them of a rat infestation, he took his revenge by using his pipe on their children. Enchanting them with his charism and delightful tunes the piper led them away into a secret mountain cave and they were never seen again.

Baklinski quotes Argentinian journalist Marcelo González of Panorama Católico Internacional who wrote that he was “terrified” for the future of the Catholic Church:

Of all the unthinkable candidates, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is perhaps the worst. Not because he openly professes doctrines against the faith and morals, but because, judging from his work as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, faith and morals seem to have been irrelevant to him.

In His article, Lawler notes

Day after day, in his homilies at morning Mass in the Vatican’s St. Martha residence, Pope Francis denounces the “doctors of the law” and the “rigid” application of Catholic moral doctrine. Sometimes his interpretation of the day’s Scripture readings is forced; often his characterization of tradition-minded Catholics is insulting. But in this case, the Pope turned the Gospel reading completely upside-down. Reading the Vatican Radio account of that astonishing homily, I could no longer pretend that Pope Francis is merely offering a novel interpretation of Catholic doctrine. No; it is more than that. He is engaged in a deliberate effort to change what the Church teaches.


Whether one wants to agree with these writers or disagree with them, their comments cannot be simply brushed aside for they express in writing the same dis-ease that the poster recently noted around Rome also expressed. Anyone who truly cares for the souls of the faithful and is dedicated to handing on what came from the Apostles rather than the theological offerings of some peri-Vatican II theologians, will find in these two articles either cause for concern at the questioning of the direction in which Francis is taking the Church, or support in recognising that they are not alone in feeling that Francis’ papacy is a damaging one. Those who continue supporting Francis will find in the articles the complaints and concerns against which they must defend Francis; those who distrust him will find their reasons simply and clearly stated. Whichever side of the divide we take, one thing is for sure: we cannot treat this papacy as if it were irrelevant: one way or another we have to take a stand to either support or dispute with Francis and his papacy. My only admonitions would be not to question the fact that he is the legitimate Pope, and not to call into question the character of the man or his state of soul -those judgements belong to God alone.

Monday, 13 February 2017

Re-visiting Forward Together in Hope -or into lamentation

I have been looking at the document for moving ‘Forward Together In Hope’, mentioned in a previous blog post. The Diocesan Document is available here. I have chosen to comment upon the following, which are bullet-points taken directly from the document which says:

“Our new partnerships will offer opportunities to ensure that:

 · A range of formation programmes can be developed, at a more local level, to help communities provide pastoral care for many groups of people, catechesis, marriage preparation and worship.
This seems admirable. I have always felt that deaneries could have worked more closely; one perhaps one providing Marriage Preparation; another providing First Communion Preparation or Reader/ Extra-ordinary  Ministers Formation etc. It has always been problematic when preparation or formation courses are held in a location central to the Diocese as travel for many people made it impossible to attend. We might also have better input at a local level and not be formed like sausages to suit a particular person’s vision.

· Support can be made available for smaller communities.
Yes: more priests taking it in turn to celebrate Mass for them; hear their Confessions, anoint their sick. But having their own named priest remains essential if we are not to fall into having communities which are decapitated Christs (bodies without a head). Each parish should have its own named priest to teach, sanctify and govern; to oversee the parish as its local shepherd.

· The gifts, talents and financial resources in a wider area can be put at the service of more people.
Yes, but care needs to be taken. If this means a central fund for partnership areas, how will parishes like one I served which is very small but very generous (and therefore not short of money) feel about their funds being used to help out a larger parish who has not had land to sell or does not have a good weekly offering? We might like to say charity will overcome but in reality, that is not how people broken by original sin with the wound of concupiscence tend to function. It is naïve to think people are not concerned to spend their own money on their own parish.

· Responsibility for a range of services such as finance, health and safety, administration and communication can be coordinated across a wider area.
I’m not sure how this one will work; it uses high-sounding words but there is no explanation as to how this is expected to work out.

· Priests can be freed to concentrate on their essential calling to preach, call the community to worship and the celebration of the sacraments.
This one is very problematic: it removes from priests their role as shepherds and makes them sacrament machines. It is contrary to scripture in which the Apostles took care to ensure they left a presbyterate and overseer for each area. Such shepherding is not peripheral to the call of the priest but is part of his essential calling: Our Lord lamented communities where there were no shepherds; they are therefore of His Divine Will for each community.

· A thorough and careful review of property and its uses can be carried out throughout the area.
One might hope that this means selling off unused land and closing unused buildings. It will hurt, but did the Bishop not tell us to expect pain as the result of this programme? Why avoid it now? Larger parishes can at least have their own pastor.

· Opportunities can be found for people to come together across the area to celebrate and worship together.
We have been doing this anyway: have we not for years had shared Penitential Services, shared Carol Services, Deanery-wide advertised pilgrimages etc?  

· Leadership teams including priests, deacons and people can develop to help everyone deepen their understanding of what it means to be a witness to Jesus in our world today.”
This does not reflect the Tradition of the Church: the leadership role is within the shepherding role; responsibility for certain tasks may be taken on by lay members of the community, but leadership of the flock lies with the shepherds, not the sheep. We have not given the laity their education and formation to be salt of the earth –their authentic vocation is, said Vatican II, “the evangelization and sanctification of men and the penetrating and perfecting of the temporal order through the spirit of the Gospel” Decree on the Apostolate of the laity, #2).

In truth, we seem to have spent three years to no real purpose, other than giving the people the experience of feeling they were being consulted. It was of no real purpose because it brought about nothing new, only the extending of an already-existing model of cross-boundary working: we first went from Deaneries to the ‘twinning of parishes’; then to tripartite parishes as ‘pastoral areas’; we have now spent three years to do no more than extend ‘pastoral areas’ to ‘Partnership’ areas. I doubt three years was needed to merely extend a model that has been going on for some time now.

All of this however, fails to note the elephant in the room; the failure to promote the priesthood as a singular and sacred way of serving God. Let’s be honest: without diminishing marriage which is at the core of the Church and society, marriage is of the natural created order of things; it was “that way from the beginning”. Men are called out of that natural order to serve the community, which is why the word vocation was customarily applied only to priesthood and religious life. 

In his Introduction to the Booklet the Bishop says, “I hope that our whole diocesan family will continue to pray that the Holy Spirit will guide us into the future with confidence, a deep sense of mission and a willingness to witness to the coming of the Kingdom of God.” I too hope the Holy Ghost will inspire and lead the Diocese. I am not sure about the word ‘continue’ as I think by the direction e have been taking in the West for some years now courts the danger of making priests into nothing more that sacrament machines who renege on their calling to ‘teach, sanctify and govern’. If we leave the hsheep to tend the sheep it will no longer be individual sheep that wander off but whole flocks –for want of a shepherd who calls and directs their way.