The November edition is online today.
Click here to read the current newsletter
Comments welcome…
Tags: cardinal o'brien, climate change, obama, scottish catholic media office
-
If you recall, a few editions back, a visitor intent on defending Bishop Tartaglia asked for a newsletter thread when the new edition goes online.
My own feeling is that we have a letters page for feedback and I’m not a hundred percent sold on the idea of this thread, for a number of reasons, although initially I did think it was a good idea.
I’ve been out and about being beautified, among other things, and just got back so thought I would point out that if bloggers are not too bothered about this feedback thread, I’ll happily delete it and you can send your comments for publication in the January edition by email or letter, as some readers already do anyway. I’m in the “indifferent to the feedback thread category” right now. Your call.
Of course, this may all become academic anyway, since it has been put to me – fairly strongly – that we ought to look at adding a secure section to our website, accessible to “members only” and that would include the newsletter. So only those who have opted to read the newsletter, by hard copy and/or online, would have free access to it.
Over to you…
-
I am not in favour of a secure section for the following reasons:
♦ Streetwise surfers exit from any site that requires them to register before letting them explore the contents. This is to avoid giving out their e-mail addresses.
♦ Any publicity is good, even when negative, so the more who can access and comment the better.
♦ Life is sufficiently complicated as it is – why add to it?
I have only had time for a quick skim of the November Issue, and I am avidly looking forward to studying it later.
-
Editor,
You quoted Fr Morrow’s letter to the SCO in which he said:
“For more than 40 years the Popes have taken up their apostolate precisely from Vatican II, giving a wealth of teaching eclipsing any
other epoch… The achievements following from Vatican II are
monumental… In Liturgy, Ecumenism, Catechetics, Divine Revelation,
Missionary Activity, Canon Law, the Theology of the Body…
I am more than delighted to follow those wonderful Shepherds, the
Vicars of Christ… Are you?”Surely he was being sarcastic?
I am disappointed that you still believe the Scottish Bishops have power to veto a government health programme in Catholic Schools. Also surprised that The Scotsman, which you quoted, referred to the catholic Bishops’ …own schools” The Scottish catholic Bishops do not own or run any schools and have very limited influence in the Catholic schools run by local authorities.
Delighted to have made it into “Blog Bites”:)
Eileenanne
-
I am very much in favour of a secure section. Sorry, Lep, I just don’t buy the excuse that people wouldn’t register because they had to give an email address. It takes about five minutes at most to set up a bogus email (chickentikkamasala@hotmail.co.uk!!!) and I’m sure plenty of bloggers have used a bogus email in order to conceal identity.
I think we should also take into account the letter from Bishop Tartaglia in the November edition. I think the Bishop is being quite sneaky here. He sends in a letter saying “please don’t send me the newsletter anymore” to make it look like he holds Catholic Truth in contempt. However, I would bet my house that Bishop Tartaglia not only reads the newsletter online but monitors the blog too.
-
Eileenanne
The Scottish bishops have the power to appoint staff to Catholic schools. I would say that is a huge influence, albeit reduced because the bishops don’t have the bottle to use the influence properly.
In Scottish Catholic primary schools there is a separate programme for Religious Education, Sex Education and aspects of Health Education. So I think if the bishops did take the bull by the horns and challenge this scandal then the government would listen.
Could you imagine Cardinal Winning’s response to the immunisation process? He would be screaming from the rooftops. The government would listen because the Bishops DO have influence, Eileenanne. You are quite wrong to suggest otherwise.
-
Petrus,
The Bishops don’t appoint staff to Catholic schools, though they do have to approve those appointed, and of course they have somecontrol over aspects of the curriculum as you mention. There would be no point, however in their trying to ban the vaccination programme, since they do not have that power. They could and should have urged parents to withdraw their daughters from the programme, but how many would have taken the Bishop’ advice? I suspect not many, so the Bishops would simply have made public the extent to which Catholics make their decisions without reference to what the bishops say. Maybe the bishops realised that, and decided not to wash the Church’s dirty linen in public, or maybe they just opted to keep out of it for their own reasons.
Eileenanne
-
Eileenanne, you keep ignoring the key fact that Michael McGrath, Director of the SCES himself explained that they held discussions for two months with the local authority before agreeing to the vaccinatioin programme.
Check out the newsletter again. That is quoted in the Scotsman article in the piece on the split among the “s(p)inners”.
They agreed to have the vaccination if the local authority would not include the bit about contraception, safe sex. Clearly, the local authority could not impose the vaccination or they wouldn’t have wasted their time in negotiations.
Why can’t you see the bleeding obvious, wummin?
-
Eileenanne
You wrote:
“They could and should have urged parents to withdraw their daughters from the programme, but how many would have taken the Bishop’ advice? I suspect not many, so the Bishops would simply have made public the extent to which Catholics make their decisions without reference to what the bishops say. Maybe the bishops realised that, and decided not to wash the Church’s dirty linen in public, or maybe they just opted to keep out of it for their own reasons.”
Are you seriously suggesting that the bishops shouldn’t speak out because no one will listen? This is madness. If that is the case then they should offer their resignation right now and go and work for social services. That is an appalling statement, Eileenanne. Whatever happened to the Church Militant?
-
N O T I C E . . .
Update on the SSPX talks –
http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/blog/?p=2383#comment-20203All responses to go on that thread, please and thank you…
-
Petrus,
I have claimed no insight into the minds of the Scottish bishops. I have no idea why they did not speak out.
I speculated about one possibility – nothing stronger, just a speculation about what is possible, namely that the bishops might conceivably have wanted to avoid the public relations disaster of having the laity ignore their advice in a very public and countable way. They may of course had totally different reasons. Speculating about what MIGHT be the bishops’ motivation for acting as they did should not be taken to mean that I think they would be right to act in that way.
Regarding the Church Militant, as far as I know, we are soldiering on.
Editor,
If the Bishops have control over the religious, moral and sex education in Catholic schools, (and they do) why was there any need for negotiations so that Catholic schools would not have to include the bit about contraception and safe sex?
I still maintain that bishops have no power to forbid the vaccinations to be administered in Catholic schools. Surely you or someone here must have a headteacher friend or acquaintance who could confirm that?
Eileenanne
-
Eileenanne, until I read your comments, I had never doubted for a minute that the bishops were in control of the moral etc education of children in Catholic schools and it is obvious that the negotiations about this vaccine were to please the local authority not because the Church needed to negotiate. That is obvious from what the Scotsman articles in the newsletter show.
I was especially interested in the newsletter coverage of Ireland and I am glad that they are to be included. I hope the bishops of Ireland get copies.
Also a very interesting article on Obama by John Ingram. Since it says in the newsletter bio on him that he is a Catholic Truth blogger, it must be Tomas de Torkay, I presume (since Theneva is a female, I believe?) I certainly hope Fr David Cotter of Paisley is feeling quite ashamed of himself, voting for that anti-life president.
In that case, too, it is very interesting indeed that Fr Cotter’s bishop asked to get off the mailing list. Two peas in a pod?
-
rebel
I believe there are a lot more than 2 peas in that pod. And your speculation is correct.
-
Editor
I thought your concluding “From the Editor” was excellent, even though it gave you, once again, the last word. It reminded me of the first time I came across your writing, back in 2007 when “Perpetua” was trying to convince me to accept an invitation to speak at your ‘08 Conference. My first reaction to your writing was “WOW!! This woman is a real fireball!”
I was quite surprised to read in the Fr. Gruner article that he thinks it is Pope Benedict who will be killed in the Vision of the Third Secret. Didn’t Father Kramer opine that it would be the Pope AFTER Benedict?
As for the politically-New-World-Order-correct Cardinal Keith, who has clearly abdicated his post, perhaps the theme song of faithful Catholics in Glasgow should be:
“Some Day My Prince Will Come”
-
Eileenanne, I have no need of checking with any headteacher, friend or foe. It is absolutely clear that the government cannot do what they want in Catholic schools. In England, all the Ofsted documentation spells out the fact that Catholic schools will not be inspected on sex education or religious education – and it actually says, clearly, that they are expected to be different in these areas. It’s only our worldly bishops who don’t WANT Catholic schools to be different in these areas and permit modernist heresies and explicit sex education – and then, utterly dishonestly, blame the government.
So, don’t add to my workload, please and thank you. If YOU have proof that the Scottish bishops have given up their rights in this regard, it is up to YOU to prove it to us, not the other way round. Obviously, if Catholic girls can be innoculated, e.g. given a contraceptive vaccine without the bishops having any say in it, we ought to close the schools down without delay. It is a patent nonsense, Eileenanne and I wish you would contact the President of the Catholic Education Commission, who, last time I looked was Bishop Devine, and ask him if you are correct in this matter. If he confirms your incredible view that the bishops have no control over Catholic schools in any meaningful way, such as mass vaccination programmes, then we would need to look very seriously indeed at what to do about it, ad limina visit springing to mind.
Don’t you remember the fuss when a Catholic headteacher in England refused to allow the vaccine in his school?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7633761.stmSo, please, jump off that hobby horse, Eileenanne, before you’re pushed. Threat? Me?
“Fireball”? Torkay? That’s a first. “WOW that woman is a real nutter” is more what I’m used to but thanks for being so kind – and it’s not even Lent yet.
You’ve got your Fr Gruner confused with your Fr Kramer, though, our Torkay. Father Kramer said that it would be the Pope after Pope Benedict who would consecrate Russia. Fr Gruner said he thought that Pope Benedict may be the Pope mentioned in the Third Secret who would be killed (adding that Pope Benedict seems to think the same thing – hence all the secrecy surrounding both Summorum Pontificum and the lifting of the SSPX excommunications).
Torkay – “Some Day My Prince Will Come” plus video link completely hilarious!
Enjoyed reading all your comments but I’m not sure we’ll bother with a newsletter thread next time. I’ve got a back-log of threads various bloggers have requested, so a day has been lost, really, on this and I’m not convinced it is worth doing. Will take the matter under advisement, as you lot say in the States, Torkay!
-
Editor
I thought the Consecrating Pope was also the murdered Pope – murdered, in fact, because he performed the Consecration. Guess I’ve got that wrong…..oh well, as someone I know once said, had to happen some time…..
-
Torkay, that’s not the impression I have; remember, Our Lady said that the Consecration would be done, but it would be “late”. I imagine something really big would have to happen before the Pope joins up the dots (at last) and obeys. His predecesso’s violent death having been the fulfilment of the Third Secret prophecy might just do the trick. But then, maybe I’ve been watching too much Columbo again…
Eileenanne, I forgot to mention your comment about Canon Morrow above, and the quote I included in the newsletter from one of his letters in the SCO.
No, he was not being sarcastic. Not at all. He was writing in criticism of Gerald Warner and castigating the “Lefebvrists” as he called those who attend SSPX Masses. His letter was very lengthy (they always find room for long hate-filled letters from liberals) I wonder if he calls Jesuit priests and people who attend their Masses “Ignationists”? Or “Fransciscans” – would you think of yourself as a “Franscan” because you attended Masses offered by a Franciscan priest? Of course not. It’s a nasty way of showing hatred for all that Archbishop Lefebvre stood/stands for.
The only letter that the then Father Morrow has ever written to Catholic Truth was in defence of the use of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. That is the measure of this priest – not his pro-life work which appears to be based on the same foundation as that of any humanist or Protestant pro-lifer – the right to life. Nothing more. All that Fr Gruner said on this subject at our Conference, about the real pro-life motive being ignored, that is, that a soul is being denied its purpose, to know, love and serve God in this world so that it may be happy with Him in the next, is not, it seems, part of Canon Morrow’s agenda. Not that Canon Morrow would respect Fr Gruner’s opinion on anything, I suspect, given that he (Canon Morrow) believes the Consecration of Russia has been done, certainly according to one of his bulletins sent to me by a reader recently, who was shocked at his recent SCO letters attacking the SSPX in particular and traditional Catholicism in general.
And remember, Eileenanne, Archbishop Conti once publicly criticised Father Morrow at the SPUC Mass in the Cathedral in Glasgow, for his pro-life activities. So, the idea that Father Morrow criticises Archbishop Lefebvre, who would have cherished his pro-life work, while defending the current crop of unbelieving and lip-service-only-to-pro-life bishops, would be laughable were it not so tragic.
-
editor,
If you don’t mind me making a criticism, I’ve now read the newsletter in full and I have to be honest. I would have liked a bit more on the Conference and a bit less of the long letter on sedevacanatism. I’m glad you put a stop on more long letters like that, it is too much. I think you need to watch that the newsletter doesn’t lose the character that is so attractive, which was always short and to the point reports and letters. I do agree that some longer articles can be useful but if the letters are also going to be long, then it will get like other publications, too much to read.
I was just talking to somebody else who read it and who is not online but she said she laughed out loud reading the stuff in the editorial. So, please don’t think I am being totally negative, just wanted to make the point about going down the road of lengthy letters.
-
rebel,
I’ve been out all day, so sorry for the delay in responding to your comment. I don’t mind criticism at all – I am well used to it.
You are not the only one (or the first) to complain about the length of the feature letter and I do agree – it is a one-off as I explained in the editorial note at the end of it. Sedevacantism is a new heresy and since we’d allowed a lengthy criticism of it, from a reader in England, we thought it was only fair to allow a response from Martin Blackshaw, author of the original article, but that will be the end of it now. I think I’ve made it clear that only concise letters will be published in future, so worry not!
I’ve had a couple of telephone calls of gratitude for the newsletter this morning, and one from a lady who was disappointed that I didn’t pursue Cardinal O’Brien more, in my editorial, on his neglect of pursuing vocations to the priesthood instead of his involvement in climate change. She thought I was wrong to go into the subject of co-habitation since, she said, the priests in the archdiocese of Edinburgh are very annoyed that the Cardinal seems more interested in climate change than in working to increase vocations to the priesthood.
Very recently, a blogger criticised me for having debates on homosexuality but not co-habitation. Now the ciriticism is I focussed on co-habitation instead of priesthood. Can’t win!
So, believe me, rebel, I am used to criticism! In fact, I don’t mind it at all, really. How else to improve? Bring it on!
-
Another great Newsletter. I laughed at the piece about “rottweilers going around in pairs” and what might be found in the Italian garden on Sunday mornings. Very funny. One thing though, I think,as rebel said, too much space was given to that letter on sedevacantism, worthy though it is. I’m glad the news team have decided that this won’t happen again as lengthy letters are often not read and they do take up a lot of space. Mind you, I have to say that the letter was full of interesting insights.
-
Torkay
I don’t believe any Pope will be murdered. I think Fr. Kramer has this one wrong. The Fatima ‘vision’ released in 2000, in which a Pope dies under a hail of bullets and arrows, makes much more sense if interpreted supernaturally.
By the way, did you get my email message?
editor
Great November newsletter, My favourite was the editorial. Pity to spoil all those short juicy scandal stories, though, with a lengthy letter dealing with a heresy that is leading many souls astray! Sorry to have bored everyone with the details!
-
Athanasius, I did not mean to belittle your letter. I do think it was a very good letter but I was disappointed that there was not more about the conference and I think the newsletter is in danger of losing its punchy character, if editor keeps publishing long articles and letters (sorry editor).
I forgot to ask, did Bishop Tartaglia give a reason for coming off the mailing list. He surely wrote more than “don’t send me the newsletter any more”. Also, good for Bishop Logan for writing to say thanks for the DVD. Maybe Bishop Tartaglia was annoyed at getting the same DVD?
-
rebel
I didn’t take it personally as belittlement, it’s just so important a subject. There are a sizeable number of sedevacantists out there and they could play havoc with these talks between the Holy See and the SSPX.
I happen to agree that the newsletter is no place for these lengthy discussions. I think the letters on this subject should have been dealt with on the blog. I suppose they will be from now on!
-
Ath
No, I didn’t get your email. Way to go, Editor, giving Athanasius a wrong address….must have been that mickey he slipped you…..
That’s the first time I’ve heard the supernatural interpretation of the Vision (well, actually, maybe the second time – didn’t that little book “A Bishop Dressed in White” suggest the same?) – and I hope and pray you are correct.
-
Fantastic stuff and I’m only half way through it! I wouldn’t want the private thingy.
-
Torkay
Could you send me an mail message so that I can get your correct address? Thanks.
As regards the vision, it’s only my opinion but I can’t see the Pope being killed with arrows in the 21st century. My theory is that these bullets and arrows represent heresies old and new.
The loss of supernatural life is far worse than the loss of natural life. The second part of the Secret already dealt with natural disasters, predicting a second world war. Brother Michael of the Trinity pointed this out in his work. Hence, the third part of the Secret (Third Secret) deals solely with the greater chastisement of heresy and apostasy.
Therefore, I think a good number of people have gone off in the wrong direction with regard to the Third Secret. They’re expecting a material apocalypse when, in fact, it’s a supernatural one going on right now and progressing rapidly to??????????? Who knows, maybe these 12 million rosaries will halt the apparent death of Catholicism in the world.
By the way, I’m not saying that a material chastisement can’t happen. Of course it can under the second part of the Secret. But the Third Secret doesn’t deal with this, I’m sure of it.
-
athanasius i absolutely agree with you.i dont think it will be a question of arrows but with deep spiritual things.whats going on in the Church is crazy and it will take some amazing event to stop it.
-
Ath
I sent Editor an email to forward to you. Good point about the arrows!
-
Athanasius, you wrote
“Pity to spoil all those short juicy scandal stories, though, with a lengthy letter dealing with a heresy…”
Would you mind naming these “short juicy scandal stores” – I can’t find them.
-
I can’t find the juicy scandal either. Reading this edition was a bit like thinking you have bought The Sun and picking up The Herald instead. Thoroughly intellectual; short on scandal.
-
Can’t say I can find any “juicy scandal stories” either. It would be a terrible thing for a Catholic publication to spread scandal so I’m pleased that the Newsletter seeks to “undo heresy” and expose renegade clergy, for example. Mind you, there would be no need if the bishops were doing their jobs. Three cheers for the fearless Catholic Truth team!
-
I really enjoyed the report on the Liverpool priest. It is excellent that he has been corrected and maybe he will think twice before publishing inaccurate material again. I must say, he sounded a pretty decent guy to enter into debate about it. How many just ignore or go on the attack? The editor’s Beatles’ lyrics were absolutely priceless. Hilarious.
I found the information on the First Friday devotion to be very useful.
-
semperfidelis,
while you are correct to say we shouldn’t “spread” scandal, there is a difference between spreading scandal and exposing scandal. As a last resort, certain scandals sometimes require publicity. As you know, we have already exposed a number of scandals, although we’ve withheld a great deal more than we’ve published.
Sometimes, e.g. we’ve not published a scandal involving a priest, because he’s not the only priest in his family and we have concern for another relative. In any case, there are so many clerical scandals now that really all we need to do is to make reference to the dire state of the priesthood within the Church in Scotland to highlight episcopal negligence. Because, always, at national level, the buck stops with the bishop and thereafter, of course, with the Pope. If I published the name of every priest I hear about whose involved in an affair – or has been for about ten years, as in a recent case of a departing cleric – there’d be no space for anything else. Indeed, so brazen are some of these priests, that their affair/departure is sometimes announced from the pulpit! How’s that for publicity!
And it is true that we never publish “juicy” scandals – by the way, I’m sure Athanasius, like myself on so many occasions, didn’t think too much about his choice of words and didn’t mean to imply Tabloid journalism – it wouldn’t look too good for our lead blogger to slag off the newsletter, so I’m sure that was a slip of the keyboard.
There is, as I say, a difference between publishing “juicy” i.e. salacious scandals for the sake of it, and what we have done in the past, expose scandals already known to the bishops, and about which they’ve done nothing, and, indeed, after contacting the person concerned to urge repentance.
Unless you think the Daily Telegraph was wrong to divulge the fraud and misbehaviour of Westminster MPs (and Scottish MSPs) on the grounds that they were “spreading scandal”, then, you must agree that the reports we’ve carried, cannot be classified as “spreading scandal”.
Indeed, we had a major scandal scheduled to report in the current edition. I’m not going to give any details and I would ask bloggers not to speculate – I will not divulge this information either privately or publicly now.
Why not? Well, not for the reason that the subject (no doubt) thinks. I had lawyer’s letters coming out of my ears, threats of an interim interdict (that never materialised) and then the below-the-belt threat to sue, not the newsletter, but me personally. I didn’t know whether to laugh (at the idea that anybody would imagine I had anything worth suing for – I can’t even find my piggy bank, my desk is in such a mess) or cry because, last time I counted, my piggy bank totalled a fiver and I’d earmarked that for a half-dozen fresh cream meringues for the team and me to enjoy at our final pre-Lenten meeting. Ach well.
No… legal threats don’t worry me one bit. If they’d been serious about the legal threat, they’d have slapped on the interim interdict. Silly sausages.
We decided not to publish for a couple of reasons that I will not recount here (because that would entail details of the case) but also because – can you hear violins? – the subject was obviously terrified. Newsflash! The editor of Catholic Truth has a heart after all!
In an effort to avoid publicity, we’d suggested a meeting with the relevant bishop which brought forth, not gasps of gratitude or sobs of sorrowful anguish coupled with relief, but… another letter from a lawyer (supposed to belong to one of the top legal firms in the city but known to me as Inspector Clouseau…)
Still, (and you can call me an old softie if you will) I actually felt sorry for this man. He needs help.
Oh and he knows now that we’re on to him. If the reports we’ve been getting for quite some time now, are repeated, that will be a very different kettle of scandal. He’s on notice. He won’t hear from us again. It will be “publish and be (not, I hope) damned” if there is a next time.
So, semperfidelis, I’m not sure if I am making myself clear, but basically, there is a difference between spreading scandal for the sake of it, or even for a good reason, and what we do. We ALWAYS prefer not to publish. Subjects know that. But the key question has to be: is the scandal of double-living by laity and/or clerics within the Church acceptable? Is it something that should be covered up? Remember, somebody always knows. Somebody is being scandalised. And perhaps families potentially destroyed. Better to bring such hypocrisy into the light of day – as a last resort – if someone is blatantly making their living out of the Church while causing scandal by double-living.
Thanks everyone for your contributions to this current edition thread but I don’t think we’ll repeat the experience. Anybody with comments on the newsletter content in future may express their views, in the time honoured way, by writing a letter for publication to the editor. She has a policy of publishing every letter, so you’ll still be able to have your say – just keep them short!
-
Hi Sweet, Dear, Editor!
Terrific newsletter, as usual! I sure do like the articles from John and Martin. Three cheers for you great guys!
With home school and my house “on the market”, the time constraints have made it difficult for me to blog as often as I would like. But I think of you special guys and gals very often.
Athanasius-
“My theory is that these bullets and arrows represent heresies old and new.”
Your interesting statement reminds me of the text, “The Bishop Dressed in White” that Editor, Torkay and myself read and discussed a few years back.
You could very well be on to something. -
Thank you for your kind comments, Miles Christi Sum – I am glad you enjoyed John’s first class article on Obama and Martin’s excellent letter on sedevacantism.
I forgot to say earlier, that Frances Burke, who had written a lengthy letter taking up some ponts in Martin’s original article, rang today to say she had received her copy of the newsletter and praising Martin’s letter… after I’d pre-empted what she was going to say by reminding her that we couldn’t publish any more lengthy letters! She laughed heartily and said, and I quote: “actually, I think Martin and I essentially agree – we’re neither of us sedevacantists but I just think a bit differently…”
She said he’d clarified a couple of points for her, so that is all to the good.Miles Christi Sum, I’m hoping that your house is on the market over there is the US of A, because you’re looking to purchase one over here in Scotland?! Please!
-
Editor
Yes, my home for sale is in the USA. The housing market here is in such a slump that we might just decide to stay put in the house we’re in.
At the present, I’m not looking to purchase a home in Scotland. Is the housing market in a slump in Scotland, as well ?
-
Miles Christi Sum, everything – including the housing market – is in a slump here. Still, we could find you a bargain, I’m sure of it!
-
Wait just a minute there, Mother Editor, MCS will have to get behind me in line. I need a round-trip ticket to Rome, remember? So I can look up the original Vatican II documents, before they were destroyed by the liberals.
So enough talk about a slump, and get that bake sale going to generate some funds…….
-
I wonder who that was who thought the September newsletter was “middle of the road”? That was quite harsh. Not many people I’ve spoken to would think the newsletter is ever middle of the road, so that surprised me a lot, and I forgot to say. I’ve got to read the newsletter more than once to take everything in, so that didn’t hit me first time around.
-
Editor,
I am disappointed that you are not prepared even to consider the possibility that you are mistaken in your belief that the bishops would have been able to veto the HPV vaccination programme in Catholic schools if they had so wished.
I have been a reader of your newsletter for several years. I share your concern about the state of the Church in Scotland and beyond, and although I do not agree with every one of the opinions you express, I have always believed that what you said was well researched and factually correct.
On this, however, you are quite simply mistaken. The 1918 Education (Scotland) Act, which set the terms under which Catholic schools became part of the state system, gave the Church the right to approve teachers and set the RE curriculum. That’s all. Obviously there is no official list of what the Bishops can’t do. A government run vaccination programme would not come under either of those headings. To my knowledge no subsequent Act has increased the Bishop’s powers, but if there has been such a change I am happy to be corrected.
In recent years, the term R.E. has expanded to become “Religious and Moral Education” and this has widened the Bishops’ influence into such matters as education in sex and relationships, a situation that would not have been foreseen 91 years ago when it would have been unthinkable that such matters would be on the school curriculum. This may be why there was some discussion with the Church representatives about the advice that was to accompany the vaccinations, although I do wonder why the Bishops even entered into negotiation about that, since as far as I know they do have a right of veto over any “(im)moral” education in Catholic schools.
I realise that I am not going to be the one to persuade you of the error of your thinking on this matter, but I hope somebody else can. The must be someone with knowledge of the law whose word you will trust and I hope you will seek him or her out for advice. As I said earlier, there are plenty of good reasons to criticise the Bishops, but it is quite wrong and an offence against justice to castigate them for not doing something that they have no power to do.
I won’t re-enter this discussion unless you specifically invite me to make further comment.
God bless,
Eileenanne
-
Miles Christi Sum
Great to hear from you! Thanks for your kind comments about the newsletter, they were certainly clearer than my previous remarks.
editor
Of course I wasn’t undermining the quality of the newsletter, but I can understand how some might think that the way I worded my previous post. I wasn’t meaning that you spread scandals, of course not. We need newsletters like yours to keep people abreast of the heresies and dangers to souls out there. No insult intended. By the way, that was one witty editorial. My mother was reading it today and the tears were litterally rolling down her face with laughter. She tried to read bits back to me, but couldn’t stop laughing long enough to make sense. Fortunately I had already reviewed it.
Torkay
Got your email address and sent the message. Thanks!
-
Editor–a bargain. Now that’s tempting, very tempting!
Athanasius- You’re very welcome.
Torkay- While you’re in Rome, how about finding the real third secret documents, as well.
-
Eileenanne, re. the bishops’ authority over Catholic schools.
I told you that you were on the wrong track here and you have now proved it by your own words. You wrote:
” (the introduction of sex education…)… This may be why there was some discussion with the Church representatives about the advice that was to accompany the vaccinations, although I do wonder why the Bishops even entered into negotiation about that, since as far as I know they do have a right of veto over any “(im)moral” education in Catholic schools.”
Exactly! That is what I have been trying to tell you all along. Gimme strength.
Think, lassie: you have just said that the bishops have the right of veto over any (im)moral education (implicitly, activity) in Catholic schools. That is what I have been saying ad nauseum all along.
Eileenanne, I rather took it for granted that you would know I was not suggesting that the bishops are informed every time a pupil is given an aspirin or there is the routine medical visits and vaccines. THIS vaccine is different – we had threads on the whole HPV business, with the statements from Church representatives at the time.
So, you see, we are agreed after all. Had I realised sooner that you thought I was suggesting that the bishops were duty bound to be actively involved in every incident in a Catholic school, well… common sense tells you that that is a nonsense just as common sense should tell you that OF COURSE the bishops had the right of veto over the HPV vaccine. Because it is not at all what the health professionals said it was; a vaccine to prevent cervical cancer but a(n) alleged preventative measure for a sexually transmitted disease. That’s why Peter Kearney said it couldn’t be allowed in Catholic schools because it would be “giving the green light to promiscuity”. If you want me to search out the previous threads, tell me and I’ll get the links for you.
Now, can we leave this matter be, Eileenanne? We are clearly agreed, may God be praised. As for me being wrong. Eileenanne, you MUST know by now that, while I may not always be right, I am simply NEVER wrong wummin!
Perhaps I did not explain myself clearly enough, so apologies for that.
THE END!
Athanasius, I’ll now release your next pay cheque – it’s stuck in the moderation queue!
-
Editor,
We are NOT agreed. The Bishops do NOT have any power to interfere in ANY matter in Catholic schools other than approval of teachers and RE curriculum.
The HPV vaccination is part of a HEALTH programme. You believe it has moral implications, but it is a government health policy over which the bishops have no control.
I have emailed a number of people who would be expected to know the law asking the direct question “Would the bishops have been able to forbid this programme if they had wanted to?” I have had two replies so far, one from my local councillor who consulted the education department and was told “no” and another saying the same which was sent on behalf of Bishop Tartaglia.
Who would have to say that the bishops do not have the power to veto this programme for you to accept that it is so? You seem to believe Peter Kearney rather selectively.
Eileenanne
-
There are two different issues here.
If the advice and information which the government wanted girls to receive in conjunction with the HPV jab was contrary to Catholic teaching – which seems to have been the case – the bishops had a right and a duty to forbid its dissemination in Catholic schools. There was no need for them to enter into any negotiation or discussion on that. I have no idea why they did.
The administering of the vaccinations in Catholic schools was outwith the bishops’ control.
I don’t believe I ever suggested bishops should be involved in the minutiae of life in Catholic schools. I have been at pains to point out that their role is very limited.
Eileenanne
-
Eileenanne, would you ask the same people for the answer to the following question.
Is the Health authority free to install condom machines in Catholic schools and to have the nurse set up an office to give contraceptive advice to Catholic boys and girls (as they do in non-denominational schools) because, obviously contraceptive advice is also part of the HEALTH programme.
The HPV vaccine is to prevent sexually transmitted diseases, so it stands to reason that if it is acceptable to doctor girls for sexual activity with the aim of preventing an STD, then it must surely, logically, be acceptable to doctor them to prevent conception and, according to the accepted “science” with regards to condoms, other STDs as well as HPV.
If, in fact, the Scots bishops have no authority to stop that part of the Health programme either, then we really need to include that in our Ad Limina file. Because in each and every document on Catholic schools that I’ve ever read (and I had to read a lot to write a 50,000 word thesis on the subject of Catholic education in days of yore) the Vatican makes absolutely clear that the Bishops are responsible for the religious and moral formation of children in Catholic schools. And for the maintenance of a truly Catholic ethos. Not possible if you are giving “the green light to promiscuity” as Peter Kearney put it. Hardly a “selective” quote but a clear statement that stands on its own.
Oh and maybe you would clarify what YOU meant by your acknowledgment that the bishops have a right of veto over moral education. What does that mean if they can do nothing to prevent health activities that prepare young girls for early (as ten and eleven) sexual activity?
I await the response of your contacts – including Bishop Tartaglia – to the above. Thank you.
-
Your last post went up with mine. It was NOT outwith the bishops control to refuse to allow the HPV jab to be administered in Catholic schools for the reasons I’ve already given ad nauseam.
Bishop Tartaglia agrees with you but then he didn’t know the Pope’s mind on the restoration of the traditional Mass despite it being spelled out in what must be the shortest papal document in history, accompanied, incredibly, by a letter to the bishops explaining it further! So, it is not too surprising that he thinks he has no authority to prevent his pupils being injected against a sexually transmitted disease. Clueless.
Here’s what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about the civic authorities (again, common sense tells us this, even if our Catholic sense has abandoned us): “The exercise of authority is measured morally in terms of its divine origin, its reasonable nature and its specific object. No-one can command or establish what is contrary to the dignity of persons and the natural law”.
Hence, the bishops should have said “thanks, but no thanks”… We don’t want Catholic girls being given “the green light to promiscuity”, and there is no-one on the face of the earth with the authority to make us do so. That is what any truly Catholic bishop would have said.
Parents who wanted their girls to be innoculated could get the jab at their local GP’s surgery. If they want to set their daughters on the road to perdition, let it be from that address and not from the address of any Catholic school.
-
Editor,
You are still confusing what you and the Church believe should be the practice in Catholic schools with the law in Scotland, which severely limits the bishops’ powers.
Church documents on Catholic education are written – I imagine – with the presumption that the Church runs Catholic schools, as indeed it does in every other country where they exist. Scotland’s system is unique. We have Catholic schools funded and run entirely by local authorities. This probably seemed like a great idea in 1918, and indeed it served the Catholic community well for the first 70 or 80 years. It is only since the state became almost entirely secularised that the cracks have begun to show.
I have had one reply from a bishop and one from the council. Neither has convinced you. What about a lawyer? I don’t know any personally, but maybe you do.
Eileenanne
-
Re the “green light for promiscuity.” I wonder how many girls have refrained from having a sexual relationship outside marriage because of fear of cervical cancer. Not many I imagine. Fear of pregnancy – yes. Fear of what their parents would say – yes. Fear of mortal sin – yes. Fear of cancer? Very few I’d say.
If you had been given this vaccine in your teens, editor, would you have embarked on a life of “free love”? No, I don’t think I would either.
This doesn’t change the argument, it’s just a comment on your pessimistic view of our young Catholic girls.
Eileenanne
-
Bishop Tartaglia should hang his head in shame. Perhaps a new job for the Bishop of Paisley could be Apostolic Nuncio to Iran!
-
Eileenanne,
I notice your failure to deal with the question in my post of 12.10am November 7th. I’d like an answer to that please.
And, have you read page 3 of the newsletter? I quote:
“The Catholic Church originally raised objections to the (HPV) jab on the grounds that it could encourge promiscuity but has made a U-turn after reaching an agreement with health and education bosses…The Catholic Church has now decided it will back the programme with the jabs being available in its own schools” (The Scotsman, 17/08/08)
So, clearly the bishops could have decided NOT to do a U-turn, could have kept up their refusal to allow the jab in Catholic schools. That is about as clear as I can make it.
-
Eileenanne
“Re the “green light for promiscuity.” I wonder how many girls have refrained from having a sexual relationship outside marriage because of fear of cervical cancer. Not many I imagine. Fear of pregnancy – yes. Fear of what their parents would say – yes. Fear of mortal sin – yes. Fear of cancer? Very few I’d say.”
“Fear of mortal sin? Yes.” You’re having a laugh now, aren’t you Eileenanne? The majority of Catholic kids today have not the slightest notion of sin, let alone mortal sin. Good grief, they don’t even know how to recite the act of contrition! As for the Hail Mary, don’t even go there!
-
Editor,
Whether the HPV jab is a “green light for promiscuity” is open to debate. As I have already said, I don’t think fear of cancer is what keeps young girls chaste.
Nevertheless, the Church raised objections, the Scotsman tells us, as well it might if the jab is seen as the “green light for promiscuity”. But did the bishops at any stage threaten to ban the jabs in Catholic schools? That would be much more than just “raising objections”. And is the Scotsman’s report a reliable source of information when the writer does not seem to understand that the Church in Scotland has no schools of “its own”?
I don’t know what was said in these negotiations any more than you do editor, but I would speculate that the bishops are well aware of the limitations of their powers with regard to schools and did not threaten to forbid the programme because they knew they would have no such power and would end up looking rather silly, especially,and this is further speculation, since they may not have been confident of the support of Catholic parents.
Or, perhaps they did threaten to forbid the vaccinations, and then withdrew that threat when advised that such a thing was not within their remit.
As to your earlier question:
“Is the Health authority free to install condom machines in Catholic schools and to have the nurse set up an office to give contraceptive advice to Catholic boys and girls (as they do in non-denominational schools) because, obviously contraceptive advice is also part of the HEALTH programme.”
I don’t really know the answer to that question but my guess is that since this would be very clearly the “green light for promiscuity” it is a moral issue which the bishops would have power over, but I’m not sure. It may be that if this was proposed and the bishops tried to ban it, the local authorities might dig their heels in and it might have to be settled by a court. I would not bet any money on which way the decision would go. Not to provide this kind of service just might be interpreted as infringing the rights of the non-Catholic children at the Catholic schools. We live in very strange and troubled times, as you well know.
Eileenanne
-
Eileenanne writes, (incredibly)
“Whether the HPV jab is a “green light for promiscuity” is open to debate”
If young people are seeing sexual permissiveness all around and even in their Catholic schools they are being doctored against sexually transmitted diseases, what else would you call it, if not a “green light for promiscuity”?
Certainly, if my Catholic schoolteachers had said we were going to be innoculated so we wouldn’t get any sexually transmitted diseases, I think most of us would have been, at the very least, confused. Hey, if we’ve been jabbed and won’t get a disease (and nobody’s talking much about it being wrong anyway, and when they do, it’s very much with a nod and a wink in these RE lessons) why not? I think I would certainly have seen green lights flashing like mad.
The message we got at school (and home) was unmistakeable. As my friend’s mother said to her loud and clear as we set off for a night out, pointing to her own wedding ring: “…when there’s a ring on that finger, then and only then, my girl…” I remember, distinctly, our giggles as we teetered on our heels to the bus stop! Young people today are not getting clear signals so when signals go out from Catholic pulpits and schools they should be unmistakeable – they should certainly not be green lights to promiscuity.
And, also incredibly, Eileenanne later writes in response to my question about whether the health authority could install condom machines/give out contraceptives in Catholic schools and the bishops do nothing about it:
“I don’t really know the answer to that question but my guess is that since this would be very clearly the “green light for promiscuity” it is a moral issue which the bishops would have power over, but I’m not sure”…
Bloggers should recall that Eileenanne’s original default position was that the bishps had NO authority in Catholic schools beyond some staff appointments and the RE curriculum.
Will somebody come and get me out of here?
-
Editor,
I stand by my contention that the bishops’ power is limited to the approval (not appointment) of teachers (not all staff ) and to the RE curriculum. Nothing I have said has contradicted that position.
You say the HPV jabs are a green light for promiscuity. I think the relationship between illicit sex and cancer would be so remote in the minds of young girls as to have little influence on their moral decisions. I can’t say any more on that that is likely to convince you, and maybe you know more about what makes young people tick than I do. I am happy to agree to differ.
The scenario you introduced re condom machines and other “sexual health services” in schools is different. The connection between easily available contraception and early and illicit sexual activity seems to me to be much more proximate, and therefore quite likely to persuade young people that sex outwith marriage and at a young age is OK and without consequences, especially if their moral formation at home and school has been inadequate. I think that is borne out by the worrying statistics on pregnancy and STDs in teenagers, both of which have increased as contraception became ever more available.This makes your scenario more of a moral issue over which the bishops might have control. I say “might” because in 1918 such a situation would have been unthinkable, so no-one thought of providing for it, and anyway, moral education then was probably assumed to be part of RE. The bishops’ right to control moral as well as religious education has come about only as RE developed into separate but linked topics in the curriculum – it is not specifically enshrined in law as are their rights to approve teachers and prescribe the RE programme. That is why I said they might be able to forbid condom machines et al, but given the determination of the government to sexualise children, I don’t think we can be absolutely sure that they would in fact be able to prevent it.
Eileenanne
-
Correction:
“The bishops’ right to control moral as well as religious education has come about only as RE developed into separate but linked topics in the curriculum…”should read:
The bishops’ right to control moral as well as religious education has come about only as RE and moral education developed into separate but linked topics in the curriculum
-
Eileenanne,
You keep banging on the about the law of the land as if councillors and MPs have more authority in Catholic schools than the bishops when it comes to moral teaching and actions directly related to morality such as innoculating girls against STDs and, of course, it is irrelevant whether the girls link cancer and sex – they don’t, which is why the whole safe-sex propaganda machine is a waste of time and money.
But because they don’t think “I won’t have sex in case I catch a disease” doesn’t meant they don’t fall into that mortal sin because the entire ethos of society (including now their Catholic schools) is making it all seem perfectly acceptable. Everything that is said, all the actions, send the message that it’s OK for children to be sexually active, if not promiscuous. It’s about, as Peter Kearney said, “signals”. No words are necessary, Eileenanne, but we send out signals all the time – and I hope I am sending out the signal that I am thoroughly fed up with this ridiculous discussion. The bishops don’t have any authority in their own schools? Really? Oh but Councillor Joe Bloggs does? Yeah, makes a lot of sense that…
I am very tired of this nonsense. The facts as laid out in the newsletter speak for themselves. The Scotsman reported a U-turn by the bishops and if they had misrepresented the situation, then it was the job of the spin doctors to publicly correct them. They didn’t. Thus the only public record we have is confirming what I am sick of repeating, that the bishops could have, if they chose, refused to allow girls to be doctored against any STD, HPV included, if they had stuck to their original decision. There are loads of contradictions in your posts, Eileenanne, which I just do not have the time nor the will to highlight and correct. In any case, you appear to be so determined to show me to be in the wrong, that all logic has gone out of your window.
I’m sticking with what I know of the principles of Catholic education coupled with the only public record of the bishops’ position on the HPV jab.
You think what you like.
-
Editor,
I did try to have this discussion by email to let you see that I was not trying to prove you wrong publicly. You refused so I came back to the blog.
It is a pity you did not use one of the many posts you have made on this blog to point out my contradictions. I believe I have answered every point you have made.
This is a matter of law, nothing to do with the principles of Catholic education – that is what I have been trying to say all along. I am disappointed that you fail to see that.
Eileenanne
-
Eileenanne, you appear intent on proving me wrong – I did not say publicly. I do not care about being wrong – if I am wrong, as I have been in the past and no doubt will be in the future, I will say so. But it is nothing short of ludicrous to argue that local councillors have more authority in Catholic schools than do bishops when it comes to the kind of moral issues we have been discussing. I am not going to waste my time pointing out your many contradictions. Read your own posts again and if you cannot see how often you have said (a) that the bishops have no auithority in these matters and then (b) that, well, they do have authority in these matters then you need help.
Now, post on this if you wish but I am far too busy to respond any more on this subject. The bishops are on public record saying they would not allow the HPV vaccine and after a series of meetings, they did a U-turn. That’s about as clear as it gets.
Now, please either let the matter rest or be prepared for me to ignore any future posts. I am up to my eyes and am not going to keep repeating the same thing over and over again. You think what you want to think, Eileenanne – this is a non-issue for me.
ps, for your own peace of mind, you might consider sending the link to this thread to Peter Kearney, and ask him to point out precisely where I am wrong. Do, please.
-
Guardian Angel
I noticed that you voted against the Church being an influence for good in the world. Was this due to your having misread the question or did you vote ‘NO’ deliberately. If it’s the latter, then I would like to know your reason.
-
I emailed Guardian Angel this morning, to alert him to your question, Athanasius, but I see he has not yet responded. Very curious. I had presumed he misunderstood the question but now I am wondering…
-
Athanasius
And there was me thinking that the privacy of votes would be respected. Wrong again! I hadn’t banked on the thought police!
I voted ‘NO’ for several reasons, most of which I must admit were a wee bit naughty!
The first was I thought this debate was excellent and I was impressed by the fact that an atheist was prepared to come along and fight his corner. So good on CT for organising it. But I was dismayed that one or two people in the audience thread were being bombarded with so many questions that they found it difficult to keep up. I didn’t want them disheartened and I voted for them. Call it tactical voting.
The second was that they made some good and valid points which I am not going to expand on here.
The third was that I felt that Editor (as chairwoman) should have remained impartial. She does an amazing job and works hard. But in this particular case I felt that neutrality would have been better. My vote was a small protest in that regard.
Now a question: how did you know which way I voted? Have the results been published naming who voted which way?
-
Guardian Angel
When you voted ‘No’ on the thread your name automatically showed, as do all our names when we post comments on a thread. No big mystery there, then.
As to voting as you did. You do realise that, whatever you numerous reasons, you took a public stand, siding with atheism, against the Church.
You know what Our Lord said: “Those who defend Me before men, I will defend before my Father in heaven. Those who deny me before men, I will deny before my Father in heaven.” And again, “Either you are for me or against me.”
You denied Him and voted against Him when you chose to side with atheist and vote against his Church as a source for good on earth. You do realise that it was a public denial of your Catholic Faith?
Besides the obvious, these people were particularly vile and blasphemous in their remarks against Our Saviour and they had nothing valid to say other than that some bishops and priests had brought scandal on the Church in relation to sexual abuse cases.
One even admitted to having apostatised from the Faith and was living with another man in a homosexual union. Others even write mock prayers with filthy language incorporated. You know what they say, Guardian Angel? Show me your friends and I’ll tell you what you are! I’m shocked at what you did and I’ll pray for you.
-
Guardian Angel,
I, too am totally shocked by your attempt at defending the indefensible. I read your post above, as I read your original vote, with my jaw close to my knees. You have truly surprised, shocked and scandalised me, firstly by voting against Christ’s Church and then by your pitiful attempt at self-defence.
It is a total nonsense to say that I did not remain impartial. That is NOT what Allan, the gentleman who asked for the debate, said in our private correspondence where he kindly thanked me profusely after the result was announced. I know that chairpersons do not normally vote (I ran debating clubs for years) but this was more of an informal debate and, anyway, I acknowledged my little “naughtiness” at the top of the results comment and deducted my vote. As ever, we try to have a light touch at Catholic Truth. The only things we don’t find funny are heretics, schismatics and Judases.
Additionally, I went so far as to announce the results of the voting poll – which atheist, Allan, to his credit, told me not to bother doing, but which I had decided to do, anyway, before I cast my vote, by the way. I decided to announce the poll result because it was, as I’ve already said, more informal than a live, audio debate, where only those listening to the arguments get to vote. I thought it would be a nice gesture to acknowledge that the atheists had obviously rounded up supporters to vote in the poll, even if they didn’t choose to sign up for the blog. I didn’t need to broadcast to the world that the best part of 10,000 votes were cast against the motion by comparison with the 111 for the motion but I did. Hardly the sign of bias in any chairperson.
So to blame me for your scandalous vote is downright ridiculous and mean spirited – not to say entirely dishonest.
Athanasius has really said it all. You have publicly denied your Catholic Faith. There is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for doing that. Not if I had been the worst chairwoman in the world, not if I’d voted ten times, not if I’d rigged the entire result.
And if, as you claim, you were torn in deciding which way to vote because you believed the atheists made “some valid points” then you need to look very deeply into your conscience. Something is seriously wrong in your soul. That is very clear.
-
Athanasius / Editor
Automatically showed WHERE? Where can I view who voted which way?
-
Ignore my last question! I see that I can scroll through all the 400 or so entries and look there.
Editor, I wasn’t BLAMING you – I was answering your question. If you don’t like the answer don’t ask the question.
And what on earth was the point of asking people to vote if all you were going to do was pounce immediately on those who didn’t vote the way you want?
Now, having said all of that I will admit that voting as I did was done for the wrong reason and I was wrong to do so, especially in light of some of the latter comments which, I confess, I didn’t read properly. So I apologise for that.
-
Guardian Angel, there is no right reason for any Catholic to vote against a motion that says the Catholic Church is not a force for good in the world.
The point of the motion from our point of view was to defend the Church and demonstrate that it IS a force for good in the world. If you think the Church is not a force for good in the world – indeed, as the atheists argued, it is a force for evil – then you ought to do the honourable thing and leave.
And you DID blame me in that you tried to use me as an excuse for your vote. Hence my response. Don’t clutch at straws especially straws that do not exist.
Note: you need not scroll down all 400 entries, all you need to do is look at these posts – all you did in the Debate post was use your comment post to vote. If you look at your post above mine, you will see that anyone reading it knows it came from you. Same on the Debate thread.
-
Guardian Angel, here’s a comment on one of the atheists’ blogs who took up the challenge to vote in our poll – as you can see, none of them voted in favour of the motion out of pity of us…
“The tables were already turned after I voted. Something like 76 to 24 for us. That’s making me wonder just how much traffic these guys have. It’s too easy”.
Made much easier, of course, by the apathetic Catholics who either didn’t bother to vote in the website poll or to vote on the blog thread. Not forgetting your goodself, of course, who voted with the atheists.
Few things have given me as much food for thought as your vote, GA – not because we needed it, thank goodness. We won the argument by a very comfortable margin. But just knowing that any baptised Catholic could think and act as you did in this debate, is food – and the finest steak at that – for thought.
Comments are now closed.
67 comments