I was going to post fully tonight on the Una Voce Report but I came back at 7pm from shopping to find Laurence England's post about the Bishops' job advert in the Guardian, supposedly a quality newspaper, but certainly one of the most anti-catholic organs in the British 'print'. Damian Thompson has now picked it up on Holy Smoke. But to my mind, Laurence's post shows more genuine fire in the Catholic belly. See his blog 'That the bones you have crushed may thrill'.
I was appalled by the bishops' latest move. Laurence says most of the things I would say about this, but there is something else. The advert was published two days before the Aposolic Constitution on provision for the Anglicans. Was that a coicidence? I think perhaps not. In spite of the present chairmanship of Archbishop Nichols, thought to be more pro-Benedict than the body over which he presides, and in spite of some urbane remarks from the Cardinal emeritus Murphy-O'Connor, one cannot but imagine that perhaps this was part of a deliberate ploy to scare off the Traditional Anglicans. (I mean, they wouldn't want to join us would they, when this is how we run things?) The last thing wanted by the liberal leadership of the Catholic Church in England and Wales (note they seem to have dropped the word 'Roman'), is an influx of traditional Catholics, loyal to the Pope, and it hurts me to have to say it, but the majority in this Conference can not be counted loyal to him. One only has to look at the way they ignored and/or misrepresented the 'Summorum Pontificum'. (We come back to that chilling remark from the Una Voce report mentioned at the end of my last post on the matter.)
The terrible thing for traditional priests and laity, is that in many places all over the world it is no longer possible to do that most Catholic of things, namely to obey your bishop and the Pope at the same time. But one has to ask, who is preventing that most Catholic of responses? Certainly not the Pope. This represents a tension that rips me apart as day succeeds day. Nevertheless, it is possible, because the Internet ensures that Pope Benedict's every word is almost immediately available, to cling to our chief shepherd, to love him, to pray for him, to drink in his wisdom, and be inspired to love Jesus Christ as he does, and as the Lord whom he most humbly represents on earth. As long as he breathes, we will listen to him and benefit from his words and actions. At the same time we will pray for our bishops, particularly those who apparently have no ears to hear.
3 comments:
I, too, am surprised at the bishops' advertising in "The Guardian" but, whatever faults may be attributed to them, dropping "Roman" isn't one. The term "Catholic" needs no such qualification (cf the American expression "Is the Pope a Catholic?"). The redundancy of "Roman Catholic" arose from people in schismatic churches like the Anglican church, particularly with their "branch theory" of the Church, seeking to down-play the universal jurisdiction of the Pope.(Also see under "Catholic" in Fowler's "Modern English Usage")
Patricius:
Thanks very much for your comment.
I'm well aware of the truths you state. However, I'll defend my 'aside' in my next post on Friday.
God bless.
Thanks for this post Jane. Are you certain that the 'Guardian' was the only newspaper in which the Bishops advertised? If it was, then why indeed, as you say, did they choose the Guardian knowing as they surely must do, the implicit anti-Catholic bias in this liberal and humanist paper? If it was not the only paper chosen, which were the others, and who made the decision in which paper(s) this advertisement was to be placed? I agree absolutely with you as regards the discourtesy and possibly worse, that some of our Bishops seem to show for the person and authority of the Holy Father, particularly apparent in the lack of response to the 'Summorum Pontificum', although I sense that good things are slowly beginning to happen. Oremus!
Post a Comment