Hopes for Hillsborough et al

I remember watching the Hillsborough Tragedy live on TV. It was a gut-wrenching sight when it became clear that what was taking place was not a pitch invasion but a desperate attempt to live.

In recent months there has been a review of this tragedy. To my knowledge this report noted that despite obvious signs of distress the Police did not react quickly enough, and that the structure of the pens; the placement of crush barriers; access to the central pens via a tunnel descending at a 1 in 6 gradient, with emergency exit from the pens being via small gates in the perimeter fence, all added to the situation. It also appears to have been noted that the mind-set of police and stewards was geared towards public order rather than safety, and that rescue and recovery efforts were lacking in leadership, co-ordination and prioritisation of casualties. Whether or not -as some who can only think of ‘football hooliganism’ might have it- some football supporters like a drink before a match (as I do) and may get involved in some violence, the fact remains that alcohol was not a contributing factor and that children, young people, middle-aged and more elderly persons, all lost their lives in what was, in light of the experience one year before, an avoidable horror.  I believe the families must now get a full and complete explanation for what happened and apologies from those responsible. Sadly, any sackings and loss of pension that might have followed in the period immediately after the tragedy now seem no longer possible.

I have two hopes for the Hillsborough families, who have my sincere condolences and fullest support. The first is that the full and honest facts of the event, which will demonstrate where any responsibilities lie, are made known in order that responsibility for the tragedy is removed from those who actually died –it seems sickening that the victims of Hillsborough could be seen as perpetrators of their own demise, and/or portrayed as badly as they were in the Sun Newspaper just days after the event. Indeed I have never once bought The Sun since that day, so disgusted was I at the portrayal it gave of the fans who did all they could to aid the injured. One can only watch film of those events to see in the compassion of those who tore down advertising boards to use as stretchers and those who gave First Aid to their injured fellows, the compassion and hand of God in the midst of a tragedy wrought by the devil.

And therein lies my second hope; that the families of the Hillsborough victims do not lose their faith in God who Himself suffered a torturous death in order to restore life to a damaged world. Sadly, many will have lost their faith, and for this the Church has to bear blame, since for a period of 20-30 years before the tragic event in Sheffield in April 1989 we focused on a ‘God of Alleluias’ and not our God-on-the-Cross, portraying His benevolence in such a way that what was perceivable by the man, woman and child in the pew was all but a Santa Claus, grandfather god. The reality of the Faith as centred on a Cross of Pain and Sorrow which would lead to resurrection had been lost. We still have those who want to sing the ‘Alleluia of the Easter People’ and by-pass the Passion and the Cross; it is perceivable in their hand-clapping, exuberant liturgies. They must not damage more souls than have already been damaged. The families of Hillsborough needed a God who suffered with them yet held out hope for a resurrection to come. They, like the families of those involved in school shootings; air, train and boat disasters, the Twin Tower or London train bombing horrors et al, through no fault of their own, could not and cannot find the Suffering Servant in Santa Claus or granddad.  I pray that with the uncovering of the truth behind Hillsborough and all other tragedies, the faith of the survivors and of the families of the victims be recovered. If it is not, it may well be our fault rather than theirs by our failure to present the truth of the Faith: that this world stands under the dark shadow of the Cross, with the peace of the Resurrection finally found only in the next world. 

Me...Brainwashed?

I would not be surprised to discover that my family think I and other religious people are narrow-mined; perhaps even brainwashed. Indeed, one family member has told a parishioner he should be more open-minded and think for himself rather than simply listen to me, his mother and his family... Though well-meaning, such folk take their cue from person-centred theory (a kind of gentle narcissism) which dominates today's world and from the liberal mainstream media, which present the Catholic Church as The Church of ‘No’: ‘no’ to sex; ‘no’ to divorce; ‘no’ to contraception; ‘no’ to cohabitation; ‘no’ to abortion; ‘no’ to euthanasia. Yet the truth is the Church is the Church of “Yes”, offering the world a culture of Life:

‘Yes’ to natural sex with all its life-giving powers intact

‘Yes’ to every human right by defending that right without which we cannot access any other right: the right to life

‘Yes’ to the permanence and exclusivity of marriage to forestall the pain of broken marriages too easily entered

‘Yes’ to the permanence of family life for the stability of children and adults

‘Yes’ to the compassion that cares for the life of the disabled and the terminally ill

‘Yes’ to holy, chaste friendships that enable us to bond with our own sex.

On the other hand, the liberal and secular mainstream offers only the Culture of death:

the death of social cohesion by promoting the “what is right for me” attitude

the death of children by abortion

the death of those in chronic pain by euthanasia

the death of the disabled by euthanasia

the death of natural sex by contraception and homosexual acts

the death of marriage and family life by divorce and cohabitation

In reality, the Catholic lifestyle is inclusive, not exclusive: 
we can drink, just not get drunk (we enjoy life without recklessness); 
we can have sex, but in the context of marriage (to avoid frequent broken relationships and sexual diseases); 
we can seek career success and material comfort, but not at the expense of our religious duties. 

The Catholic enjoys life without making the things of this life his goal. Those who live without The Faith live in what has been called “a salt-water world”: the more we drink, the more we need: the more successful we are, the more success we seek. Thus the world’s most successful singers want more hits; the most successful sportsmen want more trophies. If today’s world does not allow the Church’s common sense into the public arena it is because the world does not seek sense, it seeks sensuality. The Catholic Church speaks up for the natural, common-sense order of things in regard to sex; for the use of our reason and will to control our base desires and passionate cravings so that our cravings do not control us.

I get the distinct feeling that today's society sees religious people as ‘brainwashed’, and where having commitment to the moral code of religion is seen as religious fanaticism. Perhaps the truth is that it is those in the secular world who have been ‘brainwashed’ by person-centred theory, and who have become fanatical about the "what is right for me" ideology. When one looks around one cannot help but note that in obedience to this ideology, all the morality which held society together (the stability of the natural family and the protection of human life from the womb to the tomb) has been washed from their minds to be replaced with “anything goes as long as it is right for you/me done safely”. Hence, to have things 'right for me' we kill the child in the womb and the terminally ill; we engage in sex as ‘friends with benefits’ -and thus seen the rise of STD’s from around 5 strains in the 1950’s to  around 50 strains today. We permit men to have sex with men and women to have sex with women simply on the strength of their passions -though this is not true sex but merely mutual masturbation. 

Despite what might be claimed by some, today’s ways are not a modernisation of morality; they are a return to the morality of the ancient Greek and Roman civilisations where divorce, abortion, active euthanasia (and orthothanasia or 'passive death') and homosexuality were socially acceptable; a morality of societies that did not last -nor could they: an anti-life culture coupled with the instability of family life cannot generate a stable society. 

Unless our society returns to natural sex, stability of family life and the protection and promotion of human life, today’s culture will die as did those of ancient Greece and Rome. We Catholics need only hold to our Gospel morality and wait for the time (perhaps in a few centuries) when secular society has fallen into such distress and chaos that it will seek us out to restore life and stability to a very broken and unstable world.

A Question on Holy Mass...

Father has agreed that I may reproduce here an article from this weeks parish Newsletter. I hope readers find it useful (we have updated it today).

A Question asked:

Can we move the New Form of Mass to Sunday Morning

and the Ancient Form to Sunday Evening?

Since Mass is central to parish life I’ll try to answer this as fully as possible -hopefully without offending- by giving some background information that places the Ancient Form in a positive context while recognising the legitimacy and validity of both Forms of Mass, the new and the ancient.I know the Ancient Form of Mass requires more from us; that it stretches (and develops) us:

*its silences require we pray with mind and heart rather than simply respond on cue;

*it provides for humility by subjugating our dignity to the Lord’s by receiving Him on the tongue (still the universal norm [world-wide rule] in the New Form of Mass);

*Latin provides us with a sacred language for the most sacred act on earth, moving us from understanding at the superficial level of word recognition to perceiving the Mass as Mystery.

The part of Mass addressed to the congregation is the readings, which is why here in Thornley we always proclaim them in English, leaving only those parts addressed to God in Latin. It seems erroneous to think we understand the Mass simply because we recognise the English words:

*few can give the correct meaning of the word ‘memory’ in the consecration (it is not ‘remembering’);

*few understand that the Kyrie is addressed only to Christ and not to Father, Son & Holy Spirit,

*fewer still understand that that the Kyrie is an ancient litany of praise, not a request for mercy (even uninformed priests have been heard to say “Father, for the times we have...

Lord Jesus for the times we have...Holy Spirit, for the times we have...”)

Can we be frank and go deeper? To deplore what was venerated by the saints has a haughty ring to it, while antipathy toward the Ancient Form is really antipathy to our own roots -and to cut away the root means the plant dies. Let us look at this from a secular standpoint: if the CEO of a multi-national business claimed the business was experiencing a great renewal while it was losing its customer base, closing its stores, had staff openly criticising its product, and had to divide management tasks between shop-floor workers because it was failing to attract senior staff) that CEO would be seen as at least delusional, if not deceitful. A demographer might look at the Church and say that the Church is undergoing a similar dying process, evidenced by falling Mass attendances, the closing of parishes, seminaries, convents and schools, and the increase of doctrinal rejection by use of contraception, cohabitation; support of same-sex relationships etc. If we call this renewal we too might be seen as delusional.

Remember Vatican II gave protection to the Ancient Form of Mass, it didn’t ban it, and the Popes since Vatican II have overseen the Ancient Form’s organic growth, from Paul VI’s (Heenan Indult, Prot. N. 1897/71)  through John-Paul’s Quattuor abhinc annos (1984) & Ecclesia Dei Afflicta (1988) to Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum (2007).  

Finally, we cannot honestly say that either adults or children today are less able to enter into the Ancient Form than the adults/children of the previous 15 centuries. To say that would be to say we are either less intelligent, less humble or less spiritual than our forebears, and we surely don’t want to make such a negative indictment about oneself or others.

So, to answer the question posed:  after discussion with the Pastoral Care Team; consultation of the parish about times, and consultation with deanery priests, we moved the New Form of Mass from Saturday to Sunday so as to enable other priests, who have their own Mass on Sunday mornings, to say Mass here on Sunday evening if the need arises. So no, we cannot move the Mass. Please don’t say the time interferes with family life: Catholic families are to put God and Mass at the centre of family life, not see God and Holy Mass as being an inconvenience. 

In Cruce Salus –In the Cross is Salvation

Today we celebrate the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross.  While St Paul tells us that “unless Christ is raised...we are the most unfortunate of people” (1 Cor.15v17-19), this does not negate that “we preach a crucified Christ” (1.Cor.1v23). We seem to have forgotten this and yet it is essential; it is core to our Faith, for while the Resurrection shows the glory and power of God, it is the Cross that demonstrates His Love and His Mercy, upon which we depend for our salvation.  

We have, since the 1960’s, tended to focus on the Mass in its aspect of banquet, and thus come to treat it as some sort of ‘party time’, generating feel-good liturgies that build emotional crescendos but by-pass the feeding of the soul with spiritual truths and grace. Since any party provided by the world is likely to be much more exciting than the Mass, can we be surprised that since the focus on the Mass as meal became the ‘in thing’ that the number of those attending Mass has precipitously diminished? I think not.

It is time then, to remember that it was not the Last Supper Our Lord commanded us to commemorate, nor even the Resurrection; it was the Crucifixion: “This is My Body given up (handed over; sacrificed) for you ...My Blood which is shed (spilled, poured out) for you and for many” (Matthew 26:28).

Although the banquet and the resurrection are intrinsically part of the Mass -the Supper pre-figuring the Cross and giving us the words of Institution and the Priesthood, the Risen Lord becoming Present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Most Blessed Sacrament- it was His Sacrificed Body and Spilled Blood He commanded us to commemorate. Perhaps in order to ensure we are never without the supreme witness to His love and mercy; a love and mercy upon which we depend and in which we place our trust.

In the Cross is Salvation has two important meanings for me. First of all, it reminds me that I am not saved my by prayers, penances and sacrifices: these only invite the cross into my life and allow me to participate in the suffering of the Lord in order that having died with Christ I might rise with Christ.

Second of all, it reminds me that the Mass must be my first priority in life since it makes present on the altar the Risen Lord Who has taken His own Blood with Him into heaven (Heb.9v24) to plead for us as “a Lamb standing as though slain” (Rev.5v6). This eternal offering of the Lamb is a pleading of the Cross; a pleading to which we unite ourselves on earth at Mass: “When you eat this bread and drink this cup you are proclaiming the death of the Lord”, 1.Cor.11v26).  Since it is true that in the Cross is my salvation; then it is also true that in the Mass is my salvation. 

Lay-led Parishes: A ‘Final’ Solution ...?

After World War II there was, at least in the UK, an upsurge in priestly vocations, with the result that by the 1960’s we were dividing parishes and building Churches to accommodate the larger number of priests (one parish I know of was divided into four, with Churches no more than about five miles from their ‘mother-church’). Today we cannot fill those ‘new’ parishes with priests or people, yet we are constantly seeking ways of retaining them as ‘Eucharistic communities’ or ‘lay-led parishes’ (which includes those administered by Religious Sisters). While I for one could not go on without our admin help, our handy-men, our gardeners, our Housebound Visitation Team and our Catechists for Baptism, First Holy Communion, Confirmation and Marriage (such cooperation cannot be anything but highly valued) lay-led parishes are another matter. They are another matter because they do not constitute authentic Catholic communities: “...if a Priest is lacking in the community, then the community lacks the exercise and sacramental function of Christ the Head and Shepherd, which belongs to the essence of its very life.” (Redemptionis Sacramentum 146).

The idea of ‘lay-led’ parishes is promoted as an empowerment of the laity. I cannot understand how those who speak of such parishes can do so; how they are unable to grasp that we cannot claim to be “empowering the laity” by focusing them away from the authentic mission they received from Christ Himself. Such an idea can only arise within those who experience the priesthood (either as priests or laity) as a position of power; a power they wish to share. If that is their idea of priesthood their picture is woefully distorted: the ordained priesthood is called by Christ to serve, and it does so by holding the responsibility to teach (munus docendi), sanctify (munus liturgicum) and govern (munus regendi) cf. CCC #1592; these are responsibilities for which we must give an account to the Lord. If priests of Presbyteral or Episcopal rank see them as ‘muscle power’ to dominate rather than sacred responsibilities of service to the Lord and His flock, I suggest there is something wrong with their picture of priesthood. Truly, we cannot and do not empower the laity by focusing them on ecclesial ministries; rather, we dis-empower their authentic vocation. And this is but one problem. There are other problems too:

·         Lay-led parishes undermine the authentic Apostolate of the laity:

Unless the lay faithful see their role in the world as vital and Christ-given, they will see only Church-centred tasks as having any real meaning or value. Interestingly, Vatican II spoke frequently about lay mission, but never once used the term ‘lay ministry’; rather, it was clear that the indispensible role of the laity was world-focused: “by reason of their special vocation it belongs to the laity to seek the kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs and directing them according to God's will” (Lumen Gentium 31).  On Church-centred roles see Pope John-Paul II’s Christifidelis Laici 23: “...a person is not a minister by performing a task but through sacramental ordination...The [lay] task exercised in virtue of supply takes its legitimacy formally and immediately from official deputation given by the Pastors, as well as from its concrete exercise under the direction of ecclesiastical authority.” This notes that Church-based roles are delegated, and that the term ‘minister’ cannot authentically apply to laity, yet we still hear about ‘music ministry’, ‘catechetical ministry’ etc etc., in contradiction to these teachings.

·         Lay-led parishes can ‘empower’ the few at the expense of the many

Before the 1960’s the people were heavily engaged in the evangelisation work of the Legion of Mary; the Pastoral work of the SVP; the Liturgical work of the Choirs and Servers; the foundational work of cleaning the Church and doing our own repairs. There was a sense of ownership of their Faith and a service of Christ and souls that excluded no one. Today, our finance Committees are made up of those who run businesses or work in Finance; our Catechists and readers are teachers and other professionals. There is no place left for ‘the man in the street’.  Where we were once the Church of the common man we are now the Church of the consummate professional.

·         Lay-led parishes leave sheep to tend the sheep

Shepherds running around doing ‘magic moments’ are no longer shepherds in whom we find Christ the Head but mere functionaries; meanwhile, Mrs Smith buries Mr Brown whose wife she sits with in the Bingo on Tuesdays -and whom she now consoles as her ‘minister’.

·      Lay-led parishes can make priests appear little more than ‘magic men’

The cliché that “one does not need to be ordained to...” is a misdirection by which folk come to think that priests should do only that for which priests are essential, leading to a situation in which they do little more than run from place to place to provide the ‘magic moments’ of Mass, Confession and Anointing.

·         Lay-led parishes can discourage vocations to priesthood

Few young men will choose to be celibate when they can take charge of the parish and retain all the pleasurable intimacies of married life.

‘Lay-led’ parishes arise from the ideologies of the 1970’s when we first began focusing the laity on work in parish offices and sanctuaries instead of being the leaven in society. Perhaps -even probably?- as a result of this focus, men stopped applying to seminaries and women stopped applying to convents, taking up ‘lay ministry’ instead. Thus we began to close seminaries and convents by the score. In doing so we created the shortage of priests we now lament -and which we try to tackle by maximising a major cause of the problem in the first place. But there are other solutions.

One blogging priest calls one of these options ‘The Biological Solution’, and it is basically this: those still wedded to the ideologies of the 1970’s will soon be called to the next life, at which time younger men who have witnessed the devastation of the Faith among their families and friends will take over and pursue a more Catholic (and productive) line. This ‘Biological Solution’ could turn out to be a ‘Final Solution’ for the Church in the West unless Bishops and those with influence re-strategise. They could do worse than try another, triadic solution:

1.  provide solid, doctrine-based Catechesis in schools and parishes, abandoning the experiential, psycho-babble catechesis we have had for the last few decades

2.  promote and form the laity for their authentic apostolate as the leaven in society, with a renewed emphasis on the sacred and irreplaceable nature of both the ministerial priesthood and the lay apostolate

3.  re-orientate the liturgy toward the adoration, propitiation and supplication of God (cf. 2012 IG #2) rather than focusing on the affirmation of the community and the feel-good factor. This reorientation might be achieved by implementing the 1970 Missal in rightful conformity with Sacrosanctum Concilium, the General Instruction and liturgical tradition, along with a humble promotion of the Extraordinary Form so as to allow the ethos of the centuries to inform the celebration of the Novus Ordo –and better display in liturgical manner the Triumph of the Risen Christ. During the last fifty years we have suffered from a focus on feel-good liturgy, poor Catechetical materials and an underplaying of the lay and priestly vocations. At the same time, and perhaps as a consequence, we have only seen the Church weaken in proclamation of her Doctrine and diminish in numbers -souls are very probably then, being lost.

Along with the above I would –controversially perhaps- suggest a re-establishing of the parish boundaries in place before World War II. Not only might this encourage us to see the necessity of priests as Christ the Head and Shepherd in the parish and bring much-needed finance to cash-strapped Dioceses by the sale of under-used holdings, but it would ensure every Catholic Community was authentic; that it was a community of both Head and Members. No one wants to see parishes closed; we want to see them filled to overflowing, but some parishes can be closed because they are younger than their oldest parishioners; they are relatively new, added to which we cannot have authentic local communities without local shepherds.

The larger parishes that would result from re-establishing former boundaries would still require lay Catechists, Readers, Pastoral Care Teams, admin assistants etc., so the laity would not be passive. Rather, they and their priests would come to a renewed appreciation of the complimentarity of the ordained and lay states, with laity encouraged to make the Faith an influence on today’s society in politics, healthcare, education and the media etc so as to win the world to Christ –an influence more necessary than ever in this post-Christian age. 

Gentlemen of the Road

I have been brought to reflect upon my experience of vagrants by a recent post from Fr Ray Blake. As a child I was taught to call the vagrant a ‘gentleman of the road’, and I have encountered such gentlemen (and ladies) in every stage of my life.

As a young boy I would see my father bring ‘gentlemen of the road’ home to share his Sunday lunch, which taught me to see these men as people just like us. While studying in London (25 years ago) I went regularly on Saturday nights to the Embankment with a group of fellow students to distribute food and blankets to the homeless, spending a few hours in their company chatting with them. In fourth year of seminary I spent one day a week working in a drop-in centre for the homeless, while today when men of the road call at the presbytery, I give them food and stay to converse with them as they eat so as to give respect as well as practical help. I cannot, however, give them money, because our parish is a former pit village and not well off.

My experience of gentlemen of the road has been very varied. One family on the Embankment told me they had been on the streets for 15 years; though they had been given a local authority flat some years before they could not handle the tresses of everyday life and so had returned voluntarily to life on the streets. I recall a man knocking at the presbytery door asking for money to buy a bus ticket so he could get to his dying mother at the other end of the country; the priest with whom I was then working took him to buy the ticket but on passing by the station an hour later found the guy trying to sell it! Then there was the gent who asked for money to buy petrol so he could drive to see his dying mother; when I offered to follow him to the local petrol station and pay for it by card he very angrily refused and stormed off.

Are all the disadvantaged the same? No. I had the experience of meeting a man at the Embankment who claimed to have spent time in the States and to have been an extra in Hollywood. We were taking this with a pinch of salt until he produced a photograph of himself with Marilyn Monroe and Tony Curtis in the background. That incident taught me not to reject out of hand the tall tales we priests are sometimes told, such as the guy on Kings Cross Station who had been an architect but lost his wife and child in a road accident which he alone survived; a man whose guilt, depression and escape into alcohol caused him to lose his work and his home.

My experience then is that there are those who have deliberately chosen life on the streets because they cannot cope with normal, every-day life, and those who are there through tragic situations and as a result of addictions. We need to be prudent in how we respond to the needs of the homeless and the poor, and I think giving money to institutions with a ministry to the poor is the wisest move; giving money rather than a meal to the individual vagrant may be little more than a quieting of the conscience -and may turn out to be financial support of a self-harming addiction. Still, not to make some kind of material response is not an option for a Catholic or any person of goodwill since we are going to be judged on how well we have lived out the charity of God (Matthew 25), but we have to remember that above all, we who form the Church are not here to eradicate poverty or injustice; we are here to save souls: teaching and sanctifying are our principle mission.

Non-Judgemental Catholicism -A Further Reflection

When Humanae Vitae was promulgated it exposed the fact that many Catholics, from laity to Bishops, seemed more keen on being accepted by ‘intelligent society’ than they were on being faithful sons of the Church and her teaching. The same is occurring today when clergy and laity say the civil union of homosexuals (by nature an impossibility) is acceptable; that it is only calling such ‘unions’ ‘marriage’ that is unacceptable. Such word-play abandons Catholic morality. We desperately need to recover courageousness in speaking the Gospel Truth, because only the Truth can set us free. Bringing the Truth into discussions brings the power of God into the discussion, since God is Truth. Without speaking the Truth we speak in a powerless fashion, and show ourselves afraid to correct lest we offend or fail in political correctness. We thus fail both God and man.

In that today’s culture is secular, we cannot afford to be anything but politically incorrect and counter-cultural: “woe unto you if the world speaks well of you” Matt.18v17 –clergy and Catholic lay voices whom the world thinks ‘enlightened’ or ‘pastoral’ please take note. The secular, sensual world may think of the Church as a “Church of ‘No’” (‘no’ to homosexual acts; ‘no’ to contraception; ‘no’ to abortion, euthanasia and remarriage after divorce) but the world is wrong; we are a “Church of ‘Yes’”, and we need to present ourselves courageously in the public square as the Church of ‘Yes’:

‘Yes’ to every human right by defending that right without which we cannot access any other right: the right to life;

‘Yes’ to natural sex with all the intrinsic properties and powers of sex intact;

‘Yes’ to the permanence of marriage so as to mitigate against the pain of infidelity and breakup;

‘Yes’ to the permanence of family life for the stability of children;

‘Yes’ to the compassion that is caring for the disabled and the terminally ill;

‘Yes’ to holy, chaste friendships in which we bond with our own sex.

We need society (and some Catholics) to see that Catholics can enjoy the good things in life as much as the secularist can: we can drink, just not get drunk; we can have sex, but in marriage and open to life; we can work to provide a good lifestyle for our family, but not at the expense of our spiritual duties. “Seek first the kingdom of God”, says the Lord, “and all these other things will be given to you as well” Matt.6v33. All of us, laity, priests and bishops, need to stand up for the truth of the Faith and not word-play so as to make the Faith ‘palatable’ to a world that hates us as it first hated Christ (Jn.15v18).

Perhaps some Catholics are afraid to take up the Faith wholeheartedly simply because they will lose their Godless friends, but better that than accompany those friends along the road to hell -and take their children with them by example. Put your Faith duties first, friends, and heaven is yours; fail to first seek heaven, and it may never be found...