In Praise of Paul Priest

Bloggers of the World, unite!
William Oddie is keeping up the fight at The Catholic Herald on the Archbishop of Westminster Vs Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith saga.

Of course, a 'battle scenario' between the Vatican and the English Catholic Church is not how this issue is being presented in the majority of the Catholic press or mainstream press, but there is little doubt that that is what it now is, if we take the Holy Faith seriously.

Particularly good commentary from Paul Priest, I thought, on Dr Oddie's article. Sorry, Paul, I've edited your comment a little. Here he is, on the position of the Bishops Conference. Paul doesn't pull any punches. If only our Bishops were as ready to tell it as it is. I thought Paul's comment was particularly good as it is something of a round-up recent disasters. Anyway, I'll let him do the talking. Missed opportunities to defend Christ's Bride are in yellow, numbered, bold.

'Sorry Dr Oddie but I'm afraid you're on a hiding to nothing. They don't care - they've conceded that they've lost the fight so there's no point really fighting. They're simply preparing the way for their future justifications for withdrawing the Church from performing Civic marriages - Once 'same-sex marriage' is designated as such and 'equality' legislation finally bullies its way into forcing Churches to perform all forms of marriage or be proscribed from performing any civic marriages. 
Ben Summerskill of Stonewall stated that was their intention years ago; Peter Tatchell repeated the same demands over the weekend. They will get their way - no Government wants to be accused of homophobia. Ultimately any Catholic who wishes to marry will have to go through both a civic and a religious ceremony. Irrespective of what the Anglicans say now - once the law is changed and same sex unions are legally deemed as marriage - they will either fall into line or they will withdraw from the civic aspect - and we'll emulate places like France and Russia where a religious ceremony - even by the established church of the land - will mean nothing legally.
[1.] +Vincent is just citing platitudes - not wanting to be seen as homophobic - not wanting to rock any boat - and just waiting for the inevitable [which of course doesn't have to be!]. For +Vincent it's 'let the Scots do the shouting and fighting; and after the dust has settled we'll pretend to have always been sympathetic to the winning side' It's despicable - but it's politics! We should be used to it by now. With +Vincent it's simply 'don't rock the boat' 'be a man for all seasons [with as many faces]'
But this whole 'gay marriage' thing is nothing in comparison to what else Bishops' Conference have done! [2.] Remember +Smith halting a backbench rebellion against the Mental Capacity Act by sending round a note to the House of Commons saying 'The Church doesn't have a problem with it'? Or +Smith again when he 'welcomed' the relaxation on assisted suicide guidelines for prosecution?
[3.] Do we need to go into the Machiavellian Machinations of the CESEW? Not only are abortion-mongering [4.] Connexions been given conference blessing to work in Catholic schools - we were on the verge of a nightmare scenario last year where [with Oona Stannard's conspiracy] we almost had Catholic schools being banned from saying abortion and extra-marital sex was wrong outside a religion class!
I just don't get why everyone seems to be so submissive, compliant and complacent - underage sex is being promoted, contraception and abortifacients are being provided, and abortion referrals are given - all under the roof of a Catholic school in the strictest confidence - even for those under the age of consent! Are we insane? Why are we letting this happen? Why isn't every Catholic on the streets? Or camped outside Eccleston Square until this diabolical evil is removed from our schools? Surely all the Catholic teachers and governors know? Surely all our clerics? So why is it happening?
But wait a minute. [5.] We also have a conference which endorses the Liverpool Care Pathway - which prescribes Euthanasia via the removal of nutrition and hydration. So if we have a Bishops' Conference [under +Vincent's tenure] which signs off/on, and turns a blind eye to Abortion and Euthanasia - why should we be so shocked that suddenly they betray the teachings on the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church on what constitutes Marriage and Marital Lovemaking and how in the name of all sanity can we do anything about it because the CDF know exactly what Conference has done - and exactly what +Vincent is like? But nothing's being done about it.
Is there not one Bishop who will take a stand and say 'No!" ? One with the guts to take a stand and tell Conference to shove their syncretist, relativist heterodoxies and their murder-conspiring policies where the sun doesn't shine? Surely Bishop Davies will? Or Bishop Doyle? Or one of the others who we all know are decent good men but shamefully negligent of their Apostolic mandate? Surely one of them will say 'No!' ? This is a nightmare scenario and their turning a blind eye at four male or four female bare legs in a bed is just the tip of the iceberg.'

Paul works hard raising awareness on Catholic sites about the catalogue of hasty retreats from proclaiming the Gospel undertaken by a number of our Shepherds. A great summary, Paul. Can you tell us more about the scandal of St John & St Elizabeth Hospital as well, please? A post on that is well overdue.

Comments

Annie said…
As Damian has lost interest in fighting for the Catholic faith, perhaps Paul Priest could be hired to take over the Holy Smoke blog and continue with the work that Damian had started. Paul has an in-depth knowledge of the inner workings of the Catholic Church in England and isn't afraid to call a spade a spade and to challenge the shepherds who are in open revolt against the teachings of the Church. Anyway, if you have Damian's ear would you please suggest it?
Kevin said…
Annie, it would be a disaster. There are hundreds of blogs denouncing this, that and the other. Damian's blog is semi-famous because a) it is written by a respected journalist and therefore represents the thoughts of someone known for something other than a religiously themed blog and b) can piggy-back the popularity of a large national newspaper, comments are seen by the readership of (potentially) millions and are seen not only by the core of 40 or so commenters that a typical angry blog attracts. I am not familiar with PP's work, but with the greatest possible respect, even he would have to accept he is a 'non-entity' as far as the public goes, so the Holy Smoke blog would cease to be a publicly visible forum hosted by a proper journalist and become another small dissenting blog with a readership of dozens and a core comment base of about 10 regulars. It just wouldn't work, Catholic bloggers are popular with other Catholic bloggers, it's a micro-economy where each person relies on posts from others and makes posts in return, the whole thing would implode into 'just another angry blog'
Blush!
Loz I adore you like a brother but please...it's the message that's important - and it's making me look like some raving obsessive when I spend my life banging it home again & again about Connexions & the LCP - because I couldn't live with myself or look myself in the mirror if I didn't do something - I can't camp outside Eccleston Sq as Paul Smeaton suggested - so I do what I can - and that's shout a lot!

The solicitor and campaigner Nicolas Bellord is the man to ask about the John & Lizzie - if it weren't for his vigilance and unswerving devotion most of us would have been hoodwinked into believing everything had been resolved there - it hasn't!

Annie - t'would never happen - I am indeed an non-entity

Kevin - I'm not really an angry blogger/commentator - that role was thrust upon me because I'm at present absolutely incredulous at what's happening around us..you're obviously not a reader of Damian's blog - considering over the past four years I've contributed over 18,000 posts to it and helped lead the Catholic position [with a few others] from inside the comments box itself - but yes - I am a non-entity - a no-good shelf-stacking waste of space with neither credentials nor credibility.

Annie - don't give up on Damian - don't forget he's inundated with a heavy workload at the Telegraph as well as spending months researching/writing his book on addiction - don't forget he's the man who rescued the Papal visit - and for that we are eternally indebted to him.
Kevin said…
"you're obviously not a reader of Damian's blog - considering over the past four years I've contributed over 18,000 posts to it"

You're obviously not a worker! How on earth are you proud that you've wasted 18,000 posts arguing on a blog that concerns a subject you have no power to intervene in? You don't set the laws of the church, the pope does. You can follow them or not, but if I err it is not up to you to correct me, thank you very much, but the HF
The Bones said…
The Pope doesn't 'set the laws' of the Church. He guards that which has been handed to him.
Kevin said…
True Laurence, but I would argue the pope does have the power to set the laws of the Church (obviously not everything he says becomes a deontological basis for our conduct). The laws were not handed down to any manifestation of Peter's successor in their entirety, God foresaw free will and social change. How else can we explain the changing nature of Catholic laws over the last 1500 years?
The Bones said…
The Holy Father doesn't have the authority to change the Church's teaching in Faith and Morals. What was true for men in the 1300s concerning the nature of sin and salvation is true for us today.

If you're looking for a change to the Church's teaching, well, you can wait, but I expect you'll be waiting an Eternity.
Kevin - sorry but you really just don't get who we are and what we do...but it doesn't stop you commenting on it.
Kevin said…
"The Holy Father doesn't have the authority to change the Church's teaching in Faith and Morals. What was true for men in the 1300s concerning the nature of sin and salvation is true for us today."

Sorry, but you seem to be getting two separate issues confused. I'm not saying it is desirable to have future changes, I am saying, if you follow the teaching on any moral issue since 1300, the law of the church HAS changed, by implying it hasn't you are lying to yourself and giving the HMC's critics a rod to beat you with. You KNOW it's not true, just as well as the next man, so why follow satan by lying, even if it does feel right and holy to you?
The Bones said…
Concerning sin and salvation, nothing has changed and I'd ask you to name some teaching concerning sin and salvation which has.
Kevin said…
I'm not sure what you're asking, but here's a list of major inventions in the Chruch:

Prayers for the dead 300 A.D.

Making the sign of the cross 300 A.D.

Veneration of angels & dead saints 375 A.D.

Use of images in worship 375 A.D.

The Mass as a daily celebration 394 A.D.

Doctrine of Purgatory-Gregory 593 A.D.

Worship of cross, images & relics 786 A.D.

Canonization of saints 995 A.D

Celibacy of priesthood …1079 A.D.

The Rosary 1090 A.D.

Transubstantiation-Innocent 1215 A.D.

Purgatory proclaimed as a dogma 1439 A.D.

Apocryphal books added to Bible 1546 A.D.

Immaculate Conception of Mary 1854 A.D.

Infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals, proclaimed by the Vatican Council 1870 A.D.

Assumption of the Virgin Mary (bodily ascension into heaven shortly after her death) 1950 A.D.

Mary proclaimed Mother of the Church 1965 A.D.

Are those moral issues? Well, some clearly are. The problem is you a) simply assume the church always taught the same thing (which can be easily disproved by opening any catholic encyclopedia and checking the date of a doctrine concerning sin, you must have one around) and b)even if there is no formal teaching (or an explicit teaching,as when popes upto the 1800s said abortion was acceptable) you will say "wellobviously individuals can make mistakes". But when 1800 years' worth of popes make the mistake, it is no longer sensible to pretend that there is an unchanging tradition
The Bones said…
I repeat:

Concerning sin and salvation, nothing has changed and I'd ask you to name some teaching concerning sin and salvation which has.

...and you haven't.
The Bones said…
Kevin

Since the beginning the Church has taught what constitutes a sin, that which offends God, and how to attain Salvation.

Development of Doctrine concerning dogma pertaining to the Faith. Yes, it has developed but it hasn't been plucked out of thin air. The Holy Spirit has guided the Church and continues to guide Her, 'into all truth'. She cannot err in Her teaching. If I were to teach something different, I would err. If you were to teach something different, you too would err.

Transubstantition, the Trinity - these are developments of doctrine, again not coming from out of nowhere. A rudimentary understanding of both are explicit in the Gospels.

You've had your say and, as a rule, I don't allow stuff that goes against the Magisterium on here, as I don't want my blog ever to be a source of confusion.

So, given that it is confusion and err you wish to spread, please, on your bike.
The Bones said…
Btw, almost all of what you state in your list above, aside from the Rosary, was believed by Early Christians. Of course the earliest Christians believed in the Assumption of Our Lady - remember, by Holy Tradition many of the Apostles were witness to it.

Which particular Church teaching is it that you want the Holy Father to turn over and overrule all his holy and venerable predecessors by the way?