I'd like to dedicate this song to all those named in it. I hope this does not offend those of the faithful who were recruited to the CV project because it isn't aimed at them. This song is about how many are 'called' but few are 'chosen' in the Church.
Apparently His Grace, the Archbishop of Westminster, has expressed his 'disappointment' over the Government's plans to redefine marriage. Isn't 'disappointed' how you feel when you don't get a job or when Arsenal slip to 6th in the league or something?
Catholic Voices
Catholic Voices?
What’s that?
On the TV and the radio
Its sounding flat
Oh they’ve all been media trained
But there’s something they lack
You don’t need a script to tell the truth
Where’s Paul Priest, James Preece, me and Mac?
We enjoyed the Papal Visit oh but looking back
It would have been nice to tell the media that
‘We love the Pope and have you got a problem with that?’
We got Austen
We got Jack
Oh but smooth operators don’t win any Souls back
You need some people who love the Faith and Pope and don’t hold back
Why were we left out?
Do they think we’re deranged?
Do they think we’re deranged?
Catholic voices!
O Can you hear them?
O Catholic voices!
Where are they when you need them?
Catholic Voices!
We’re limited in choices, dear
Whooah oh
Catholic voices!
O Can you hear them?
O Catholic voices!
Where are they when you need them?
Catholic Voices!
We’re limited in choice this year
Whooah oh
Magic Circle?
What’s that?
It’s the management of the Church by liberal Bishops and
The choices of the new appointees on the terna that
Is given to the Nuncio
So what’s up with that?
The chance of getting men who are loyal to the Pope is fat
Holy, potential Bishops ignored like leprotic cats
Do they think that this is some kind of game?
Catholic voices!
O Can you hear them?
O Catholic voices!
Where are they when you need them?
Catholic Voices!
We’re limited in choices, dear
Whooah oh
Catholic voices!
O Can you hear them?
O Catholic voices!
Where are they when you need them?
Catholic Voices!
We’re limited in choice this year
Whooah oh
Ah well
Who knows whats down the road?
Maybe 'Gay Masses' will appear in the heart of Soho
If they continue we’ll be told to hold our tongue, you know
And we’re the ones labelled insane!
Catholic Voices?
What’s that?
It’s a way of sidelining critics of liturgical tat
And vocal critics of Episcopal choices that
Have led to the decline of the Faith!
Catholic voices!
O Can you hear them?
O Catholic voices!
Where are they when you need them?
Catholic Voices!
We’re limited in choices, dear
Whooah oh
Catholic voices!
O Can you hear them?
O Catholic voices!
Where are they when you need them?
Catholic Voices!
We’re limited in choice this year
Whooah oh
(Repeat)
We're limited in choices this year
We're limited in choices this year
We're limited in choices this year
We're limited in choices this year
(Repeat)
We're limited in choices this year
We're limited in choices this year
We're limited in choices this year
We're limited in choices this year
28 comments:
Oh not this again.
You've already GOT a catholic voice Laurence, it's called a BLOG.
So have I.
I'm not a "catholic voice"(tm), but that doesn't stop me defending my faith in the public square, on internet forums, wherever I am.
Whenever I like.
I'm a free woman aren't I? So are you.
Apart from the woman bit. Obviously.
What's with the carping about "media trained smooth operators"?
What do you want a load of soft headed eejits who love the sound of their own voice?
The ones with the slightly crazy look in their eye?
The ones who wear the giant wall rosary beads around their neck?
The ones who never leave home without their beret. The one they wear to bed,always at a jaunty angle and jangling noisily with holy medals and badges?
They'll give the media exactly the sort of "Catholic Voice" they would be delighted to make sport with.
You know the people I mean. Our churches are full of them.
I wouldn't trust MYSELF in front of a camera but I certainly wouldn't want to be "represented" by any old Biddy McPew-Warmer either.
For pity's sake give me a smooth operator before I die.
You want to spurn "media training" and go toe to toe with Jeremy Paxman or Peter Tatchell on the strength of a few rosaries?
Well be my guest.
You might call that humbly leaning on the power of prayer, I call it hubris.
Those people who get media training do so because they know they need it, not because they think they are already marvellous enough.
You lot are beginning to sound like a string of dumped lovers.
Hell hath no fury like a True Catholic Voice scorned.
Personally I'm glad that Catholic Voices have decided to go down the media savvy route.
I'm sick to death of the lame representation of catholics in the media. It's either a darling granny or a remote, egg head clergyman.
"Smooth operators" Austen and jack have conceived a brilliant idea and you lot are starting to look like a pack of bitter old spinsters eyeing the happy couple and saying "I give it a year".
Bitching about them over a glass of stout down the boozer like old Ena Sharples.
Give it a rest love.
Love it!
God bless!
To be honest I wasn't half as disappointed as others were, Clare, since I wasn't really expecting to be asked.
Also, the 'magic circle' and the appointment of orthodox Bishops situation is more concerning.
To me both situations seem to be flip sides of the same coin.
If you remember, regarding CV, people were called (I wasn't called myself) and then dropped.
Clare - sorry but I'm afraid you simply aint getting it..this isn't about promoting and defending the Faith - it's about accommodating an inane [usually deeply unhistorical and counterfactual] milk-and-water soundbite-laden irrelevance and proffering it as the Catholic position on an issue - when it invariably isn't!
Where are these Catholic Voices?
...and what exactly are they saying?
Go and take a look for yourself - or even better read their bloody book - then I'd advise you watch Michael Voris's CIA reports [1st episode on Saul Alinsky] - and recognise exactly what Ivereigh is after...
Clare - you are totally downright wrong on this one! Catholic Voices should join up with the "Holy Disobedients" in Ireland on Sunday and come clean about what they really are - a dissident group, and let them take Ab Nicholls and his cronies with them while they are at it
I think that's an oversimplified view Epsilon. There are good and orthodox people in the CV team, but it seems at least from the outside to be a little micro-managed by those overseeing it and to its detriment. Even though the message is coming from different voices - the key phrases seem to come from people above whose orthodoxy has in the past been questionable. That's why it sounds not like Catholic voices, but the voice of the Bishops Conference of E&W.
The gay marriage debate will be an interesting battleground, but one gets the impression that some people think, 'its going to happen anyway so...'
If you compare what the US Bishops have done in defending marriage with an amazing new website devoted to marriage and its uniqueness and clarity in defining it clearly, with what our Bishops have said and done, well, it really doesn't compare.
It just seems like there's an invisible hand orchestrating it all from behind the scenes providing soundbites and stuff. What would the Catholic Voices say if they were just allowed to speak their minds?
Love it too. No offence taken :-) x
Epsilon said...
"Clare - you are totally downright wrong on this one! Catholic Voices should join up with
the "Holy Disobedients" in Ireland on Sunday and come clean about what they really are - a dissident group, and let them take Ab Nicholls and his cronies with them while they are at it "
On the side of the angels said...
"Clare - sorry but I'm afraid you simply aint getting it..this isn't about promoting and defending the Faith - it's about accommodating an inane [usually deeply unhistorical and counterfactual] milk-and-water soundbite-laden irrelevance and proffering it as the Catholic position on an issue - when it invariably isn't!"
Paul, Epsilon, Laurence et al
You’re right I ain’t getting it.
I ain’t getting why the Disgruntled Catholic Peanut Gallery have built an entire online identity around fault finding and criticism.
And I’m also a bit confused about how it’s possible to be apparently super scrupulous about upholding certain truths of our glorious faith, but at the same time adopt a rather looser interpretation of those paragraphs in the Catechism of the Catholic church which refer to the virtue of charity, truth, respect for the reputation of persons and the sins
of rash judgment, of detraction and of calumny.
Meh, I guess all that hand holding love stuff is for the folk dancing justice and peace crowd. And what a bunch of wet, dissenting liberal sissies they are.
Unlike The Elite Crack Fault Finding Squadron,
among whom the common bogeyman appears to be “The Hierarchy”. That is, for the most part, our Bishops. And judging from comments like Epsilon’s, anyone who cooperates with them is apparently now assumed to be practically cooperating with evil.
Fomenting public scandal and division is surely inimical to an authentic expression of our faith and that is what I am seeing on some of these Catholic blogs.
We don't need to be handing ammunition to the enemy do we?
Judging by the enthusiasm with which the True Remnant begrudgers take up the cudgel, I might almost think you were batting for the other team. If you know what I mean.
Epsilon, where is the foundation for your staggering assertion about the dissident nature of CV?
How on earth can you justify calumniating their efforts in this way?
You put Catholic Voices and +Vin and the people you call his “cronies” on a par with the disobedient Irish group who (with comedic aptness) acronymise themselves as “WACI”?
Seriously?
From my corner of the Catholic internet, I see Catholic Voices as a disparate group of Catholics who have taken up the challenge to publically articulate our catholic faith in a world that is, for the most part, deeply hostile to it.
I salute their chutzpah.
And if, in the pressure of the moment, they get it wrong, understate a case that could be made with more force, drop the ball, fumble for the right word and fail to drive their point all the way home, then I admire them for that also.
Because it takes humility to be prepared get it wrong in public, to face the criticism and disappointment of your own team.
They might expect to face hostility from the other side, but the sad fact is that the most vituperative criticism appears to be arising from within the catholic camp, some of whom are apparently scrutinising every bit of their output for error.
Laurence, along with Epsilon’s extraordinary comment about them “coming clean” about what they “really are“, your “invisible orchestrating hand” comment reveals a rather surreal level of paranoia .
This sounds exactly like something that the secular, anti church crowd say about us Catholics. They think we are all drones of the Pope who can’t think for ourselves.
We desperately need Catholic Voices who are both media savvy and at the same time, sincere apologists for the faith.
They must be able to set their own ideas, their own ego’s, to one side and put forward the case for the Church .
Call me naive, but I think it is perfectly blindingly obvious why bloggers who have created their whole identity around publicly criticising 'The Hierarchy' have rendered themselves unsuitable to act as credible apologists for the Church in this capacity.
"Love it too. No offence taken :-) x"
Perfect.
An endorsement from an actual Catholic Voice.
You couldn't make it up.
Carry on!
Oh I just liked it because it was a very catchy tune and Laurence is very talented and it was quite witty, even if I disagree with some of the sentiment.
I think we all have to be able to laugh at ourselves. We'll probably be singing it at the next training weekend.
Laurence said he hoped it didn't offend the faithful who are members and it hasn't.
I couldn't get it out of my head last night. :-)
Clare if in your estimation we're unfit to comment on the Church on Radio & TV?
What's your problem?
Laurence myself and James have all been told to get lost so why should you worry your fragile little mind about what can't happen?
But maybe you can inform us who funds both Catholic Voices entities [the company and the Charity]
Who is accountable; and to whom?
Who is getting paid? And how much?
According to their Website: Of the seven TV appearances this year by Catholic Voices - Only ONE has was by a Catholic Voices Team-member - Ella ; four were by Austen, One Jack and another by their Chaplain Fr Stephen Wang.
22 radio appearances plus a few spots on Christian radio & Peter had his few minutes of Fame on TV's C4 comment after the news. Oh and Austen gave his Lenten Reflection on radio 4.
How can we be persistently attacking what Catholic Voices is saying when it is so much of the time ostensibly absent from the media?
They aren't exactly 'busting a gut' to get the Catholic message out there are they?
...especially when their last appearance had Austen refusing to discuss the Biblical [with the interviewer] or Religious [with Douglas Murray] notions of marriage. [to be continued]
The 'Catholic Voices' book has no references to its resources and source material; is loaded with unsubstantiated opinions; has neither Nihil Obstat nor Imprimatur...and...no...do you know what? I'll repeat what I said on Preece's blog about the book because frankly I can't be bothered wasting my time defending myself against those who wish to thwart what the Church teaches:
Take a look at their book! Oh it's a reasonably adequate source of some data, statistics and quotes on certain issues; but it's basically a hodge-podge of weak-minded, ill-constructed, trite, watered-down, contradiction-laden, cut-and-paste, ignorantly opinionated dross!
It's laden with inadvertent [and laughable] ironies [e.g. mentioning Cafod while discussing Catholic teaching on homosexuality and contraception] - it is devoid of basic ethical and moral theological understanding in principle and terminology [e.g. it declares human beings are not ends [I think they mean to say people should never be treated as means to an end] ; it doesn't understand the differences between natural moral disorder, moral disorder and intrinsic moral disorder [ e.g. it states NFP is ok and fails to mention that it is only acceptable through the double effect] it adds erroneous conditionals [e.g. the Church sees marriage as solely between a man and a woman - for the best interests of society!!!??] There's inclusion of ++Hume's dodgy homosexual comments [e.g. homosexuality is only morally disordered because it's an inclination towards the genital acts - NOT the plain and simple tragic fact that a poor homosexual cannot ever fulfil their love physicaly and spritually with another and have that love overflow into God's creative life] but then again it talks for pages on marriage without ever considering the spiritual sacramental ontology of its very nature - the two becoming one flesh and forming a spiritual union where each partner belongs to the other! Maybe it's too awkward to bring in such Doctrines.
When dealing with contraception it inserts a tiny time-bomb in its exposition of Church teaching - contraceptive INTENTION is what's wrong - not the very act itself! It perverts the entire teaching with a single word.
When speaking of religious freedom it doesn't mention Truth subsisting in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, When dealing with Anglicanism it doesn't mention the invalidity of its orders, when dealing with euthanasia it is scandalously negligent in failing to mention the issue of PVS and the removal of nutrition and hydration - in fact when it comes to Euthanasia it doesn't engage in any argument whatsoever except the general precept of life [e.g. it doesn't seem to be aware of the 'Rachels' arguments]
When dealing with hiv/AIDS it simply bombards us with unnecessary statistics rather than the crucial factors in the arguments[e.g. Cochrane on condoms and seroconversion in hiv serodiscordant couples [2007], the actual hiv epidemiology - two vital pieces of information - are simply absent] and although Dr Ivereigh doesn't continue in the promotion of his oft-repeated argument for hiv serodiscordant couples to engage in condomistic sex - but nor is it outrightly condemned as gravely sinful - an African synod is quoted as leaving it to one's conscience.
[to be continued]
[Incidentally John Smeaton's latest blogpost confirms that Valero & Ivereigh need to get back to the drawing board and perform some serious 'reframing' before it's too late]
When discussing the clerical abuse issues it commits a grievous slur upon His Holiness by quoting John Allen's opinion that the Pope was an ignorant negligent cardinal 'in denial'[!!!!!???] before 2001, the authors simply don't understand the crucial differences between suspension and laicisation [and the canonical ramifications] ; they're oblivious to the direct orders of Crimen Sollicitationis [1962] commanding the reporting of abuse within 14 days under the pain of excommunication and aren't exactly au fait with the intricacies of de delictis gravioribus.[2001] One shameful mistake being the serious error in dating the letter of cardinal Ratzinger to Cardinal Jose Lara [where he professes his frustration over the laicisation process] as 1998 when it was actually sent on Feb 19 1988!!
I could continue for hours on its failures, ignorance and poor effort in explaining the faith and imperative Church teaching on the issues - but what would be the point?
@Paul:
"so why should you worry your fragile little mind about what can't happen?"
Fragile?...
Little?
How very dare you.
I'm too busy indoctinating my many little Papists in training to parry and lunge with you right now.
Back later.
PS @Paul:
"I could continue for hours on its failures, ignorance and poor effort in explaining the faith and imperative Church teaching on the issues - but what would be the point?"
*snortle*
Indeed. That would be pointless.
memo to self:
"Both the wise and the witty are masters of brevity.
But the fool loveth the sound of his own voice."
(me)
:-)
Clare sweetheart - what is your problem?
Ulterior motives involved here?
Call me as cruel and uncharitable as you wish - but I'd prefer to be shown where exactly I was wrong...
Bones: "There are good and orthodox people in the CV team"
If they are orthodox Catholics, then by now they would have spoken out about the unorthodox and ambiguous comments made by some of their number!
Clare: "You put Catholic Voices and +Vin and the people you call his “cronies” on a par with the disobedient Irish group who (with comedic aptness) acronymise themselves as “WACI”?"
As you can see from the link WACI simply stands for 'We Are Church Ireland'.
What's different about what they say from 'Who knows what's down the road' (+Nicholls on whether the Catholic Church will ever accept homosexuality as a valid expression of sexuality)?
What's different about what they say from what's going on up and down this country in Catholic churches?
See YouGov data here - this is reflected everywhere!
These graphs show a trend Alongside this other research states that about one-third of Catholics attend Mass every Sunday. If only about a third of Catholics go to Mass every Sunday, presumably they're unlikely to be the few who still go to Confession. How many of them know that they then should not receive Holy Communion until they have been absolved in Confession? What percentage of the congregation in any church you attend go up to receive Holy Communion?
I'm not judging these people. What I'm saying is: to be Catholic is to be questioning yourself and your motives, learning to put God above everything else, learning how to be humble, etc. >> totally counter-cultural in other words.
MJust to clarify, my comment, "Love it" referred not to the previous comment by Clare, which comment I do not love, but to Laurence's song.
If the few snippets I have picked up from "Catholic Voices" are typical, they don't speak for me.
I don't wear a beret or giant rosary beads. I simply try to follow the teachings of the Universal Church, not some palatably nuanced version of the same.
Caroline, it's easy for you to see the funny side, because, as Laurence says, it's not aimed at you.
How about a little loyalty towards your fellow Catholic Voices? The ones who are putting themselves in the front line and find themselves the subject of constant scrutiny, lampooning and ridiculing by the True Remnant Inc.
And how about a little fraternal correction for your pals here? If you can lol at Laurences song, perhaps you can set the record straight for commenters like Epsilon, for whom posts like Laurences appear to endorse her perceptions about CV.
Paul
I have no doubt that there are areas in which CV have got it wrong. They are a new outfit and I don't expect that they are getting everything right. Probably there is a discussion that is worth having.
But my issue here is not with those details, but with the manner in which you are having the conversation.
You have cultivated a querulous and contemptuous style of argumentation which not only undermines the credibility of your argument itself, but is also counter productive in terms of actually having a meaningful outcome.
I would also say that your rather bruising, sarcastic and arrogant style is at odds with your catholic profession of faith.
It seems as though you are pursuing a personal feud rather than sincerely seeking to offer fraternal correction.
"Clare sweetheart - what is your problem?"
I don't see why my objection to lampooning Catholic Voices constitutes a problem on my part.
"Ulterior motives involved here?"
Paul, that is a strange thing to say. I am very transparent and not in the least "ulterior". My hands are on the table. I am motivated by a desire to see justice and charity.
"Call me as cruel and uncharitable as you wish - but I'd prefer to be shown where exactly I was wrong.."
In that case lets start with being cruel and uncharitable because I think we can all agree that cruelty and lack of charity are wrong.
It is always better to start with the log in ones own eye don't you think?
When you deal with that Paul, then you will be able to offer correction to Austen and Jack with a little more moral authority.
So by all means offer fraternal correction, but let us be always vigilant in respecting the dignity of persons, in the assiduous practice of fraternity and in seeking peace.
Peace is the work of justice and the effect of charity, and cruelty and lack of charity is inimical to the Gospel of peace.
Failing to put that "upfront and centre" is where you are 'going wrong'.
@Epsilon:
"As you can see from the link WACI simply stands for 'We Are Church Ireland'.
I know Epsilon.
That's what I meant when I said:
" the disobedient Irish group who (with comedic aptness) acronymise themselves as “WACI”"
You are a bunch of nutters. If you mates in CV don't get too much media coverage it is for a pretty good reason. Just think how much less it would be if you became their voice!!!!
@ Epsilon
"If they are orthodox Catholics, then by now they would have spoken out about the unorthodox and ambiguous comments made by some of their number!"
For pity's sake Epsilon, if they are so evidently dissident and unorthodox then why on earth are you and Laurence subscribing to the blogs of some of their number?
Ok Clare let's get a few things clear: Catholic Voices was an initiative begun almost two years ago - their major publications only recently went on sale - their 'policies' to formulate their own positions on certain issues have had plenty of time to have been 'ironed out, discerned, deliberated, researched and corroborated/substantiated/affirmed with magisterial positions and vatican statements/declarations on the issues'
What's becoming blatantly obvious is that they haven't.
I have been fighting them since the time of CV interviews over their condom position [you can check the Rhonheimer/Janet Smith 'debate' on OSV & James Preece postings from 2010] We were the ones denounced as Taliban & Ultra before we even had any disagreements with CV statements; it happened the moment we questioned their self-professed 'Pauline' make-up of the team was actually the case and wasn't more in the main an elitist [oxbridge-major london university] 'jobs for the boys and girls' set-up of professional 'already inside' Catholics who already belonged within certain professional Catholic circles and had links with certain figures in that network.
We were promised ordinary Catholics - not those who could at whim and with their inside connections walk into any other Catholic quango position...
Then we questioned the funding and their actual status - given that they dissociated themselves from the Catholic Union [from whom they had received their papal Visit mandate] BEFORE the Papal Visit to become an independent Charity with the three co-ordinators as trustees [at least this meant none of the three were being paid otherwise it would have violated charity commission regulations and been illegal] and then it became a company as well with extended CV directors to ensure the three could get paid for it] but throughout all of this we were told that its funding was not CU nor Bishops Conference..so who funded it? Was it an Opus Dei subsidiary? Or the Tony Blair faith Foundation? Or some City-led consortium by high-powered Businessmen Catholics? Don't you think it should be advisable that a 'Catholic' charity should be both open and accountable?
..and we also asked who gave canonical permission for them to use the name 'Catholic' in their title - that requires an Ordinary - who can only give diocesan remit or a national bishops' conference [who are obliged to notify the faithful in their minutes - they haven't so they're either remiss in not notifying us or they didn't] or someone with ordinarial powers - like an abbot [e.g. now ex-abbot jamison] so who authorised them to use the name Catholic if they are now an international organisation? The Vatican sure as hell hasn't or it would be splashed all over their website.
They state they have Bishops' Conference approval - which is very different from Bishops' Conference authorisation to use the name Catholic - something they could only do previously by their links with the Catholic Union which they severed a year last august.
Two perfectly understandable and probably easily answerable questions - they could easily tell us who funds them and who gave them the right to call themselves Catholic [i.e. to which Ordinary they are accountable] but as of yet they adamantly refuse to do so.
Not necessarily dodgy in any way - but secretive!
Post a Comment