The following exchange is verbatim from Twitter,
A. Ivereigh, a "Catholic Voice", tweeted today "if only those little old ladies duped into believing SPUC is Catholic knew what their money is being spent on ...."
When I tweeted back, asking for an explanation, "@austeni @blondpidge @PeterDCXW What does SPUC spend their money on?"
Blondpidge replied, "very good question. As they are a lobby group & not a charity we'll never know."
I replied, "If we'll never know, why the innuendo about how old ladies' money spent? Seeking clarification as someone who workes (my typo. Should be worked) with SPUC."
Blondpidge: "Well how does pursuing campaign against archbishops & catholic voices further pro-life cause? Please tell me?"
I replied, "If ++s in question were soft on abortion, or immoral sex-ed, campaign would help."
I would like to know what Austen Ivereigh's apparent innuendo is all about. Can anyone, please, help?
Hatred Explained
-
So, what is emerging one week after Charlie Kirk’s brutal assassination?
The assassin was the “boyfriend” of a male who fancies himself a woman.
That is, h...
5 hours ago
15 comments:
My point is Christopher is that SPUC should have better things to do with their time than tweet about either the bishops' conference or Catholic Voices. How is spending time berating an Archbishop for a slightly ambiguous statement & then desperately trying to indicate how they believe that ++Nicholls is in direct contravention of Church teaching because of a blog post John Smeaton wrote on the basis of an edited TV interview in September last year, related to defence of the unborn?
How does this help the cause of the unborn? Many SPUC supporters are elderly on limited incomes. I think there are questions to be asked whether pursuing the Bishop's conference in such an aggressive fashion, over an issue that is really a sidebar to preserving the sanctity of human life, is a prudential use of their donor's money?
Blondpidge - thank you for your reply. I shall answer you points, one by one:
1. 'How is spending time berating an Archbishop for a slightly ambiguous statement & then desperately trying to indicate how they believe that ++Nicholls is in direct contravention of Church teaching because of a blog post John Smeaton wrote on the basis of an edited TV interview in September last year, related to defence of the unborn?'
Archbishops should not be in the business of making 'slightly ambiguous' statements on matters of Faith and Morals. It's the moral equiavelnt of 'driving without due care and attention'. Archbisops should speak out clearly, authoritatively, and often. When they fail in their duty, they must accept what St Thomas Aquinas (I believe) called fraternal correction.
2. If by 'a sidebar to preserving the sanctity of human life' you mean a tangential issue, I disagree. Anything which seeks to compromise the uniqueness of marriage as an institution affects families and children, and may lead to marital break-up, and possibly abortion. I think John Smeaton understands this very well.
3. You did not reply to my
comment: "If ++s in question were soft on abortion, or immoral sex-ed, campaign would help."
The Archbishop, I would suggest, has some control (or should have) over the C.E.S.E.W. which took on as a member Greg Pope, who voted more than once in favour of abortion in Parliament. As the present Pope has pointed out, there is no room for a Catholic to support abortion. We should ask ourselves how ++Nichols allowed this to happen.
If you have been following the goings-on at the Catholic Bonus Pastor school, you will be aware of the very un-Catholic nature of some of the sex-ed films they have been using. What is ++Nichols doing about this?
As (I hope) a loyal Catholic, I shall be delighted to be proved wrong.
God bless!
Mr Smeaton's work to defend the unborn child is vitally important. Sadly, his blog undermines that work by tendentious comments unfairly attacking our bishops seeking to exercise their pastoral ministry. I note his blog criticises others but provides no opportunity for direct comment. I am seeking other ways to fight abortion as I shan't be supporting SPUC as long as its director uses his position in this way.
Frederick Oakeley - I take your point about the lack of opportunity to comment on John Smeaton's blog, which, too, have often regretted.
However, how is Archbishop Vincent Nichol's pastoral ministry exercised here: (I quote my previous comment)
"The Archbishop, I would suggest, has some control (or should have) over the C.E.S.E.W. which took on as a member Greg Pope, who voted more than once in favour of abortion in Parliament. As the present Pope has pointed out, there is no room for a Catholic to support abortion. We should ask ourselves how ++Nichols allowed this to happen.
If you have been following the goings-on at the Catholic Bonus Pastor school, you will be aware of the very un-Catholic nature of some of the sex-ed films they have been using. What is ++Nichols doing about this?"
Is he really exercising his pastoral ministry?
I think it might be a good idea, for the sake of the good name of the charity, if John Smeaton had two blogs.
He would still have a powerful voice for the church and the unborn in this way. Infact, it might even double his readerships!
I agree regarding comment access(or rather lack of). However, if you email him, he does reply. well, he did to me when I emailed last year. A very nice man.
shadowlands - thank you - perhaps you should put your two-blogs idea to him. He's getting a lot of stick at the moment.
I met him once nearly 30 years ago, and thought him a wise and strong leader.
Ivereigh's assertion that "little old ladies are being duped into believing SPUC is Catholic" is interesting. As far as I remember, SPUC never used to claim it was Catholic, even if 99% of its support was. But if he claims the little old ladies are being duped, he must know and should be asked who is doing the duping.
But I think we all know what this is about: SPUC has resolutely stayed outside the magic circle and has maintained a reactionary and un-nuanced attitude to human sexuality that should have left them washed up with the dinosaurs - in the opinion of "insiders".
But somehow, in spite of all of the rest of the magic circle "moving on", SPUC hasn't disappeared and now seems to be attracting a new young demographic which thinks that doing things like praying outside abortaria is appropriate. Is that the public face of Catholicsm the magic circle is looking for in England and Wales?
Is it going to far to think that SPUC might be a frightening (to the magic circle) example of what would happen if Catholics started to ignore the Hierarchy and do Catholic things instead?
Ttony - thank you, thank you. I suspect we are of one mind about this. I am a great admirer of John Smeaton and his dedication, determination, and drive.
I shallthink now and tweet tomorrow and report back.
God bless.
@Shadowlands:
While never in favour of contraception, in the 60s I fell for a bit for seeming logic of the argument that more contraception (however wrong, a lesser evil, one on which protestantleaders had sold the pass in the twenties, and felt no compunction about already) ought to mean fewer women tempted to abort in the first place, and so suggested to nonCatholic proabortionists on the public square: God send that he has repaired such damage as I did thereby!
I
don't think on this combox I should have to defend the now generationsold demonstratedness of the "contraceptive mentality" leading to one, but not the only,ghastly and grevious great ill and evil, in this interconnected structure of sin.
Which is why Smeaton is right: It IS all an interconnected structure of sin!
I simply have not got the discernment to see whether putting off protestants who remain were I was once, or the honourable LBetc brigade AGAINSt abortion (they DO exist) is a practical political mistake: but I stongly suspect Catholics, even in not nominally Catholic-only organizations, should stick to defence of the whole packadge , come hail, hell, or high water, and leave God in charge.Trying to be too clever by half is a snare of the Devil.
Mike
I would not want to be part of any group that referred to the hierarchy of my church (Roman Catholic) as the 'magic circle.'
I think this is rude, against the teachings of Christ, as it is He that is insulted when we insult our priests and bishops.
If we keep attacking our own spiritual leaders, and those trying to represent us in the press positively, we must remember we are persecuting Christ.
Pray for our leaders certainly, but examine one's own heart first.
I am not sure what the mission statement of SPUC is, so won't comment on how John Smeaton chooses to post on his own blog.
However, it seemed from blondpige's comment, that people might feel they were becoming embroiled or seeming to be in agreement with the very obviously growing movement, against the Archbishop if they are funding groups speaking out against him.
Personally, I find the constant attacks on the Archbishop, upsetting, especially when they are coming from fellow Catholics.
Of course, we all have our opinions, but if a society or charity is becoming a spokesperson or platform for voicing dissent, then that needs to be stated clearly, so that folks know what they're getting into.
I do not choose to get involved with the debate going on regarding a certain school in London, which constantly seems to be the focus of certain Catholic blog posts. My son is at a Catholic senior school, no-one ever blogs about it, why not? Why does everyone focus on just this one school? And assume every other blogger is interested in just one school?
It seems it is in order to have a pop at the Archbishop, most of the folks blogging about this school have no children who go there, some aren't even married, or have any children, yet they seem fixated on this one school. Why? Are the other schools not important? Are the other schools all doing OK Catholic teaching/doctrine wise? If so, isn't that great? Let's celebrate that we only have one school to complain about.
I appreciate that for people living in London, especially if near Westminster, the Catholic news worthy world begins and ends there, apart from trips to Rome, but there are a lot of other lesser known schools and churches that also come under the spiritual guardianship of the Archbishop, not just the Soho Mass church, and 'that' oft mentioned school. Also regarding Austin Ivereigh, everybody seems to have the knife stuck into, I personally think he is trying to present a positive image for the Church. But that will get me called all sorts of names, I suppose. Good.
Have any of you tried to make friends with the man? he is your fellow Catholic and a Londoner, after all.
I wonder if there isn't a bit of jealousy going on here sometimes. The Archbishop obviously holds Austin in high regard.
@Shadowlands
I proposed a definition of the Magic Circle as follows:
"By the 'Magic Circle', I do not only mean Eccleston Square - though it is certainly part of it - but rather the whole matrix of official and social relations within which power is exercised. The exercise of power in the Catholic Church in England and Wales, both at diocesan level and within the structures of the Catholic Bishops' Conference, cannot be understood unless it is recognised that it is exercised socially."
I can't understand what anybody could object to in that statement other than a) accuracy or b) taste. Could you clarify?
Ttony
I wasn't particularly referring to your use of the term, it just reminded me of previous occasions that I had seen it, when I read it, in your comment. I have heard it used on other blogs and assumed it meant an exclusive set that others felt left out from.
Basically, to me, it is beginning to feel as if British Catholicism is just political wrangling and infighting (at least as witnessed on blogger). I would not encourage any person attempting to return to their faith, or approaching Jesus for the first time, to do so via a lot of the Catholic blogs. They would simply be entering a war zone and not have a chance of discovering the Good News.
I can see there are very strong feelings felt by people, but the outward message being heard by the masses is that the Catholic hierarchy are not to be trusted and this message is being spoken, by fellow Catholics.
What do we assume the outward witness is, when we Catholics, who claim to hold the deposit of the faith, become divided against ourselves and publicize this fact daily?
There must be a better way to iron out differences, other than this non-stop bashing of each other.
There is one Christ. We will be recognized as Christians by unbelievers through our love of each other.
We must share what is good about the faith, why we hold the hope we have. The world is crying out for this hope.
shadowlands:
I do not wish to attack any bishop of any country: nonetheless,some years back at a school committe meeting (in Africa, not britspeakland) I was asking procondom propaganda be removed, whose presence-and-etc was defended on the grounds that "the bishops of.......
sancioned such". The school authorites may have been wrong, said position might have been more nuanced , but they so understood.
I said I didn't follow...., , I follow Rome.
The matter never came into the media, but had it done so......
I'm just a sinful man making many mistakes. I will NOT condemn our Pattons.
My apologies for being so slow to come back on this, but I have been waiting for some response on Twitter.
I have had none, which I think speaks for itself.
For me, SPUC remains a shining light, unlike "Catholic Voices".
P.S. And I thank you all and wish you a very happy Christmas.
Post a Comment