The Pope and the condom

Pope Benedict is a thoughtful man. That is, he is full of thoughts. About how the Catholic Faith is maintained. Most people think the Church should behave according to the fashions of the age, both those within and without. That is not what the Church is about, however wonderful new fashion may be. The Church is about accepting received Truth and maintaining the Faith.

When it comes to condoms, the general mantra is that these are the best way to prevent the transmission of disease. As a stand alone concept, that is perfectly correct. But it does nothing to address behaviour, it does nothing to address attitudes. All it says is that disease is 99% guaranteed prevented, always assuming that the condom is used correctly.

The Pope is being taken to task. What's new, one wonders? In his latest remarks he quite naturally addressed the behaviour of, for example, a male prostitute and suggests that the use of a condom is at least a step in addressing behaviours and activity. Is it not better that in such circumstances a measure of trying to protect lives is introduced? This is a step on the road to personal transformation.

The ultimate in sexual activity as far as the Catholic Church is concerned is within marriage and for the purpose of allowing the free transmission of life into a new generation. That is the ultimate situation, within the sacrament of holy matrimony. That many fall short of this, or feel unable to commit to it, or even truculantly oppose it, does not in any way diminish the beneficial aspect of the doctrine.

The Church is about life and death. Life is supposed to be naturally born and death is supposed to occur naturally. Risky sexual activity of the form the Pope described may lead to a death caused by reckless behaviour. The Church is definitely not about reckless behaviour.

Archbishop of Canterbury in goalpost moving exercise

The Archbishop of Canterbury has gone to Rome. Not over to Rome. Just a short visit to speak his mind. However, it seems to me his mind is tortuously flexible these days. He spoke at length when giving an address in Rome, as the guest of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. The address was part of a symposium being held at the Gregorian University, to celebrate the centenary of the birth of Cardinal Willebrands, the first president of the Council. Much of the address contained reference to women's ordination in relation to traditional catholic understanding.

The Archbishop's prose is sometimes heaving going on the reader, but the gist of his argument is that local churches without the whole catholic church can makes "local decisions" without deviating in any mammoth way from core beliefs. This is a bit like stretching rubber to see when it will break. He also suggests now that female ministry is based on baptism and on vocation, as a measure of equality. It all smacks a bit of changing the ingredients in a well-established recipe because some people think the recipe makes a bad cake.

He says this, "All ordained ministers are ordained into the shared richness of the apostolic ministerial order – or perhaps we could say ministerial 'communion' yet again. None ministers as a solitary individual. Thus if the ministerial collective is understood strictly in terms of the ecclesiology we have been considering, as serving the goal of filial and communal holiness as the character of restored humanity, how much is that undermined if individuals within the ministerial communion are of different genders? Even if there remains uncertainty in the minds of some about the rightness of ordaining women, is there a way of recognising that somehow the corporate exercise of a Catholic and evangelical ministry remains intact even when there is dispute about the standing of female individuals?" (Use of the word gender instead of sex is telling). The implication is that only a few have uncertainty over ordaining women whereas the opposite is crystal clear. He also seeks to find a way of incorporating female ministers into some kind of nebulous collegiality without really addressing what he calls a "dispute about the standing of female individuals".

The goalposts are being moved and the players are being given to think that the new rules will have no affect on the play in the field. The Archbishop also asked that the Roman Catholic Church give an answer as to what exactly is wrong with what some "local churches" are doing. I'd say if he doesn't know now he never will.

In a nutshell, this address was a convoluted way of asking whether there was a possibility of putting the current impaired communion of Christians together in a quick-fix solution ignoring disputes and disagreements. We all know we have to heed the Dominical request that we "all be one". Rowan Williams' suggestions sound laudable but it would surely be at the expense of conscience and catholic (universal) tradition.

Pope and Queen to have beano at Buck House!

The Queen has invited the Pope to stay at Buckingham Palace when he comes to visit next year. She will be able to tell him how "appalled" she is with the state of the Church of England. The Daily Telegraph reports that the Catholic Herald thinks she also has "an affinity with the Holy Father, who is of her generation". They will have a lot to discuss. As Supreme Governor and Defender of the Faith it must be particularly galling when you have to sit back and watch some of the antics and complete disregard for the doctrines traditionally held.

In fact, her role now is more akin to the previous chief executives of Woolworths mulling over the Pick 'N Mix counters. If it carries on much longer she will have a state funeral carried out by a transgendered cleric clutching at straws and rabbits' feet!

Now she has dispensed with the likely lads and ladies of the synod, she can move gently across the tea and cakes and whisper, "More tea, Pope?".

Tony Blair takes Pick 'n Mix to Church!

Tony Blair has not been long in the Roman Catholic Church before he is questioning the Pope's authority and casting aspersions on some of the laity. He reckons some older Catholics have "entrenched attitudes" whilst most congregations in his opinion were more "liberal-minded". He's talking of the subject of homosexuality.

His idea of entrenched attitudes is probably about those that adhere to traditional teaching. If he observes that some, both "liberal" and not, are prone to be stand-offish to those they disagree with, then he may be right. But it's a bit rich for him to be demanding that religious leaders must start "rethinking" the issue.

Is the Pope to head up a Blairite commission on the issue? I sincerely hope not. The stuff of nightmares! The Church is not some kind of New Labour think tank.

Tony Blair may rail against certain things, but a casual interpretation is very damaging. His inteviewer asks the question, "Can you foresee a situation where in your lifetime or mine, we would have a pro-gay Pope, for example?"

Blair responds, "I don't know, is the honest answer. I don't know. Look, there are many good and great things the Catholic Church does, and there are many fantastic things this Pope stands for, but I think what is interesting is that if you went into any Catholic church, particularly a well-attended one, on any Sunday here and did a poll of the congregation, you'd be surprised at how liberal-minded people were." That's it - all polls and focus groups! He implies by innuendo that the Pope is "anti-gay". This is a gross calumny.

The Church is totally opposed to cruel and hateful attacks on anybody, including those of a homosexual orientation. But it can never compromise the sacraments to suit the passing needs of society.

Bishop flips his lid!

The Pope is right to condemn the remarks of a wayward bishop. Bishop Richard Williamson was among four bishops whose excommunications were lifted by the Pope last week. So, as a joyous way of thanking His Holiness, Williamson sounds off about his thoughts of Nazi Germany. "I believe there were no gas chambers", he says.

This video of him shows what it must be like to live in a parallel universe. The Church is supposed to be universal (catholic) but Bishop Williamson's universe is not part of it!

Clerical first?

The Independent reports that a father and son have been ordained into the Roman Catholic Church. Jerome Taylor starts his article by asking "With celibacy a fundamental tenet of the Catholic clergy, you might think it should be all but impossible for a father and son to both be priests." That is the quick response to these type of stories in which the finer points of the matter are missed.

It is perfectly possible for a father and son to be priests in the Roman Communion. Celibacy is both abstinence from sexual activity and about marital status. There have been many priests who were widowers at the time of their ordination.

However, I am a little uncomfortable with the Vatican's stance in that, by trying not to compromise the position on Holy Orders, there is an implied compromise on the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. Jerome Taylor reports, "They are allowed to stay within wedlock despite being priests in the Catholic Church but are expected to remain celibate."

This appears to be an illogical concept of the position of matrimony, but then I am not a Roman Catholic.

Rigorous Roman rhetoric!

I've just had a read of some of the comments on Damian Thompson's Telegraph blog. In his post "Rome's plans for the Anglicans" we are given some very nice insights into RC pew thinking. As an Anglican Catholic I have long since known that ecumenical niceties are only skin deep with some. I'm derided as a fake catholic, attending a fake "mass" with an invalid priest in a church full of "ornaments". Now I realise that not all RC's take this line, but some reading this will give a knowing nod to themselves.

This quote - "These people have supported wymynpriestesses and mincing gay clerics with boyfriends, and such, for how many years now? What makes anyone think that they really are Catholic?" And this one - "Well, the Anglo Catholics or failing that some of us Catholics will have to go and get the Anglicans.That's not such a silly idea as it appears on first reading. If Catholics cared about the Anglicans being re-united to the Church they would make a lot more sacrifices and take real Catholicism to them." And even this one - "We have too many Anglicans in the Catholic Church already. They should take greater care to ensure that they are Catholics before they receive them into the Church."

Am I beginning to get paranoid or am I really between an eccliastical rock and a spiritual hard place? I do wish people could accept differences, live with them charitably and work out how to get on without rancour. Impaired communion exists within the Anglican Church. We live with denominational differences. However, all Christians are united by their baptism. I remember a Roman Catholic priest saying of those who were not of his persuasion, "I'm not saying they're wrong. Just that it is not right for me." A good thought.

If Roman Catholics want Anglicans to go through some sort of sackcloth and ashes penitence ritual, then that is not being Christian. Faith is caught not taught (although doctrine buttresses the Faith). I certainly don't want to catch something where I am encouraged to rubbish those I was with the week before!

Blair launches his faith foundation

Tony Blair, now a Roman Catholic, is still, to my mind, a bit of a Jekyll and Hyde character. That may sound terribly uncharitable and even downright unChristian, but I do think he has a few "issues" to confront. As an Anglican, apparently of the High Church tendency, he never really gave much support to Catholic issues. His ambivalence on homosexuality, abortion, and general moral matters seemed paramount in the New Labour pantheon. His wife, Cherie, and his children are all Roman Catholics. However, Blair thought it inappropriate to convert to Rome whilst Prime Minister. I cannot think why. Maybe he was under excruciating pressure from the secularists in the party, who are a bedevilment of control freakery. Maybe he felt the British public would rise up against him with Cromwellian fervour, seeking his head on a plate. I may find his politics unsavoury, but I do think Blair has his moral compass in the right direction. He's just a bit hazy with the pointing skills.

His new organisation is simply styled The Tony Blair Faith Foundation. It has three aims - to promote faith as a force for good, improve awareness between religions and tackle poverty and war. The last one is a bit hard to take. For those of us steadfastly opposed to the War in Iraq, both on the right and left of politics, this can only be taken seriously if he apologises for usurping international law with dodgy dossiers and fake facts. Incidentally, John McCain was talking recently of his understanding that every intelligence agency believed Saddam Hussein had WMD. If McCain had bothered to contact the Swedish embassy in Baghdad at the time, he'd know this was nonsense. It suited all concerned in the stoking up of the battle cry to believe such stuff. Regime change had never been a legitimate reason for declaring or for waging war. Tony Blair was sailing very close to the wind indeed!

Tackling poverty? He could take on the generals in Rangoon for a start. They seem quite at home with suffering and destitution and that was before the present calamity. In Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe's thugs are dragging Christians from the very altar rails of their churches. Some Catholic Mugabe has turned out to be! No regime change here. Just platitudes and pleasantries.

I wish Tony Blair well in his endeavours. All of us who profess the Faith would support such laudable action. Maybe he has had a Road to Damascus vision of how to confront the ills of society. It's just a pity that he gave us ten years of New Labour government, a lot of which was at odds with Catholic thinking. A more public admission of previous policy errors would give a lot of credence to his current ambitions.

Roman Catholics in US more in tune with Pope than Rome!

The Washington Post and ABC News have commissioned a poll of Roman Catholic thinking in the USA. The poll is perceived as showing that nearly half those respondents consider the Pope and the Church out of touch with their views. It then goes on to give percentages and information about views given.

The 45% who think the Church should bend with the wind are in favour, or don't mind, women as priests. They also want other things, which are not identified as such. But the poll says that Pope Benedict is a forceful advocate for traditionalism, including returning prayers, vestments and music from earlier eras to church services. This would suggest that some priests are conducting services in garb somewhat different from vestments, are making up extemporary prose, and plucking their guitars. Not being a Roman Catholic in America, I can only guess!

I fear the tragedy of clerical abuse has clouded some of the responses. However, it is hard to see that this is representative on such a small sample of 292. What it tells me is that, just like the Anglican Church, there are many who see Christianity as reflecting what they want and not what the Faith teaches them.

If the priesthood is seen as being a matter of human leadership, then it matters not who is a priest. However, the Church has taught differently over the centuries, emphasising the sacramental nature of priesthood and its combining nature with Christ. Marriage of priests is not the same issue as female ordination, although this poll confuses them a bit. Priestly celibacy is a discipline not a doctrine. It could be that the Pope may lead towards rescinding this discipline, back to early times. I doubt if female ordination will be on the agenda, not because it is right or wrong, but because it is not discerned as being compatible with the Faith.

As an Anglican Catholic, I'm intrigued by these answers, but not surprised. A similar ongoing "debate" is entrenched in the Anglican Church, but with the figures for change and innovation somewhat higher. That's why an ex-Roman Catholic is now calling the shots in the Episcopal Church. What the Pope makes of her, I do not know. But it defines the situation nicely. On one side, but from both churches, are the ecclesiastical democrats and on the other side, the traditionalists.