Motu Proprio published

You absolutely must watch this Motu Proprio video celebration, which has already had more than 3,000 views. See end of post for reaction this afternoon from Catholic Bishops of Scotland. (Update: Apologies to the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, who was concerned about the Good Friday prayers, and was one of those who lobbied against the Motu Proprio. He and his bishops put out a statement on Saturday welcoming the document. For some reason it was not allowed through security on my inbox.)

Rorate has details. See also what Zenit has to say on the controversial Good Friday prayers. Here is our resident Latin Mass expert Christopher Gillibrand's analysis. Chris writes: The Latin Mass- the day of liberation. By wonderful coincidence today is the Feast of Blessed Pope Benedict XI. Sadly, history records that the reign of the Dominican, Pope Benedict XI was “too short to give him time to work out any of his excellent plans for settling the troubles of the Church.” The same could not be said about the present Pope whose extensive writings already provide the agenda for the Pontificate. It is also the Feast of Saints Cyril and Methodius, with St Benedict, the Patron Saints of Europe.  In Europe, there is an enormous crisis in Catholic faith and practice, which is shared, to a greater or lesser degree by all parts of the Catholic world. This is notwithstanding the phenomenal effect of the new Pope, so excellently reported in today’s Times. The base, both in quality and quantity of practice, on which he is now building, has been completely eroded over the last forty years.

In addition to today’s announcement giving further liberty to the Latin Mass (which, in this author’s opinion, at least, should never have been taken away or even threatened-although today’s document states clearly that the Mass was never abrogated), a document on natural law is in prospect as well as more immediately a closer definition of what actually constitutes the Catholic Church. The former has enormous implications for the approach of the Catholic Church to the moral complexities of the modern world, the latter for ecumenism. 

In Churchill’s famous phase, today is “not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”  The whole Christian enterprise lies in the shadows of the haunting question of Jesus, “But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?”
The primary objective of the letter is nothing other than to restore the liturgical life of the Church. It is highly ironic that those who complained about the rushed and garbled Masses prior to the Council, should have taken the lead in producing a form of the Mass that was so open to abuse. Wits among the traditionalists have already started calling the Latin Mass, the ordinary form and the new Mass, the extraordinary form- indeed, it is a multitude of so many extraordinary forms.

The programme of the  Pope is neatly summarised in a 1997 quote.

"For some time now, in various quarters and for different reasons, the possibility of a revision of the Missa1 promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970 has been a topic of discussion. If such a revision were contemplated, the criterion to be followed should be that of maximum fidelity to the indications of the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium. (of the Second Vatican Council) Consequently, such a revision should make evident the continuity and identity of the Roman rite before and after the reform. It is clear that the proposal of a 'reform of the reform' refers to the Missal of 1970 and not to that of 1962, even if the ultimate aim of this reform would be a liturgical reconciliation" (The Latin Mass, Spring 1997, p. 8)
The secondary objective is the reconciliation of the traditionalist Catholics who are mainly grouped around the Priestly Society of St Pius X

The Society’s conditions for a reconciliation are:

1. That the Vatican make it known that every priest in the world may celebrate the Tridentine Mass without any restriction.
The Society have issued a press statement warmly welcoming the document and the Cambridge-educated Bishop Williamson, the toughest minded of the four ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1986 already had put this on record.

2. That Rome make it clear that the four bishops of the Society of St. Pius X are not excommunicated.
It is worth noting that no penalty has ever been attached to the faithful attending Society of St Pius X Masses.

3. Theological studies and dialogues are undertaken on the status and teaching of the Second Vatican Council.

The document on the nature of the Catholic Church due on July 10th can be seen as a significant step in this direction.   It would be counterproductive for the Pope would not risk producing a document hostile to the traditionalist case so soon after the freedom for the Latin Mass.

To the Motu Proprio itself
Commentary
The opening paragraphs have as yet not received an official translation (although the USCCB now has an unofficial one, which should be treated with some caution), but they place the Latin Mass in the great narrative that is liturgical history and in the cultural history of Europe and the wider world, invoking the name especially of Pope St Gregory the Great (in whose pontificate the Mass was complete in all its essentials).   The Pope links the Latin Mass to the proclamation of the Gospel by the monks of St Benedict.  This is especially relevant to these isles, as they were evangelized first by Benedictine monks sent by Pope St Gregory.   If those monks were to return today, they would weep at the ruins of their monastery in Canterbury but it is also clear which form of the Mass they would recognize as their own.

Text begins
Our predecessor John Paul II having already considered the insistent petitions of these faithful, having listened to the views of the Cardinal Fathers of the Consistory of 22 March 2006, having reflected deeply upon all aspects of the question, invoked the Holy Spirit and trusting in the help of God, with these Apostolic Letters We establish the following:
Art. 1 The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the Lex orandi (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same Lex orandi, and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church’s Lex credendi (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.

Commentary
In the legal section but not in the accompanying letter to the Bishops, the new Mass is not called “a form” – perhaps, but only perhaps that it might be legally difficult to say that it had “a form” given the great diversity of practice. It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church. The conditions for the use of this Missal as laid down by earlier documents Quattuor abhinc annos and Ecclesia Dei are substituted as follows:

Commentary
The Pope has worked for decades for a declaration that the Latin Mass was never abrogated. However, many Bishops are still working with the paradigm that it was superceded by the new Mass and needless to say this produces the hostility which traditionalists feel from Bishops throughout the world. This paradigm has now been smashed and it will take some if not many Bishops time to come to terms with it.  It should not be forgotten that many have spent a lifetime attempting to implement the Second Vatican Council and falsely believe that freeing the Latin Mass would be a symbol that their life’s work has been in vain. Today’s document has been rendered necessary because Para 6c of Ecclesia Dei Adflicta has been so widely  ignored.

Text continues
“Moreover, respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See, for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962”

Commentary
The abrogation of Quattuor abhinc annos means that, as far as I can see, there is presently no formal need for declarations of loyalty on the part of clerics to the decisions of the Second Vatican Council. The Bishops have sort these, first out of fidelity to that document, but also to flex their muscles. Given the widespread disobedience within the Church to ecclesiastical direction, traditionalists often felt they were the last group over which the Bishops could exercise power. But making people beggars is never a long term solution in any human relationship.

Such requirements hinder free and open dialogue on the third of the desiderata of the Society of Saint Pius X- see above.

Text continues
Art. 2 In Masses celebrated without the people, each Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or regular, may use the Roman Missal published by Bl. Pope John XXIII in 1962, or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, and may do so on any day with the exception of the Easter Triduum. For such celebrations, with either one Missal or the other, the priest has no need for permission from the Apostolic See or from his Ordinary.

Commentary
The last sentence is the statement at the heart of it all, that will change the liturgical life forever of the Church. The young, more conservative priests who are the few that are being ordained will take full advantage of this sentence, not least because it restores the dignity of the priesthood and is a source of spiritual consolation. One can expect to see less burnout among the priesthood, as they are no longer encumbered with the enormous expectations placed on them as “presidents of a community celebration” rather act “in persona Christi” which is all the people really need them to be. One motivation for the Pope to declare the exception for the Easter Triduum is that is that oscillating between the two forms would destroy the liturgical unit of “The Great Week”. The pre-Motu Proprio expression is that “there must be no mixing of Rites” – now it is that “there must be no mixing of forms”.

That said, the Pope is being cautious in any proposals to amend the 1962 Missal.  Any proposals for this made concrete today would have caused uproar among traditionalists, not least among them removing the Good Friday prayer to respond to Jewish concerns. The accompanying letter suggests new saints days and prefaces should be inserted  to enrich the Missal.

Text continues
Art. 3 Communities of Institutes of consecrated life and of Societies of apostolic life, of either pontifical or diocesan right, wishing to celebrate Mass in accordance with the edition of the Roman Missal promulgated in 1962, for conventual or “community” celebration in their oratories, may do so. If an individual community or an entire Institute or Society wishes to undertake such celebrations often, habitually or permanently, the decision must be taken by the Superiors Major, in accordance with the law and following their own specific decrees and statutes.

Commentary
I said yesterday that there were no reports of any reference to monastic communities. But here is it is!  It appears that a monk can celebrate either Mass freely without interference from his superior. One monk was banished in his own monastery to saying Mass in the attic because the community disapproved.  While it may remind of the times of persecution in this country, it was totally unnecessary. This paragraph leaves the way open for whole communities to transform themselves into biform (no more talk of biritual –this was also a way of dealing with the French bishops concern about biritualism) or wholly Latin Mass communities.

It was always a source of bafflement why monastic communities had to adopt the use of the new Missal in any case. Inasmuch as they were motivated by genuine concerns, the liturgical reforms were motivated by pastoral care of parishes, albeit that they have failed in this objective.

Text continues
Art. 4 Celebrations of Mass as mentioned above in art. 2 may – observing all the norms of law – also be attended by faithful who, of their own free will, ask to be admitted.

Commentary
The Latin Mass is not to be forced on anybody.

Text continues
Art. 5 § 1 In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with canon 392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church.

Commentary
See my comments yesterday on the difficulties of setting a number. As the Latin Mass becomes more widely known, the number of these stable groups in ordinary parishes will grow.  I regularly receive emails from people who have never seen a Latin Mass and would like to find the address of a Church to go to.
Bishops, to show their generous response to this document must not try to ban publicity for Latin Masses, as many have done in the past.

Text continues
§ 2 Celebration in accordance with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII may take place on working days; while on Sundays and feast days one such celebration may also be held.

Commentary
This leaves the way open for daily celebration of the Latin Mass in Parish Churches.  Depending on the priest, some parishes will move fairly quickly. Of vital importance to the success of this document is that priests should not be victimized by Bishops because they say the Latin Mass. The Bishop has the ability to move priests from one parish to another, or to confine them to obscure or difficult parishes. While some priests would take this as an opportunity to sanctify themselves, it should not happen.

Text continues
§ 3 For faithful and priests who request it, the pastor should also allow celebrations in this extraordinary form for special circumstances such as marriages, funerals or occasional celebrations, e.g. pilgrimages.
§ 4 Priests who use the Missal of Bl. John XXIII must be qualified to do so [in good standing] and not juridically impeded.

Commentary
The expected statement on seminary education is not there. Maybe there is another document due or it was a rumour resulting from clauses in the earlier declaration resulting from  the Synod on the Eucharist.
Of concern again, would be if the Bishops try to decide who is qualified or not. It would be shameful to use the intentions of the Pope for excellence to the end of discouraging priests from saying the Mass.

Text continues
§ 5 In churches that are not parish or conventual churches, it is the duty of the Rector of the church to grant the above permission.

Commentary
This covers groupings of churches – also leaves the way open for one church to be used for the Latin Mass in such cases – and may save some from closure.

Text continues
Art. 6 In Masses celebrated in the presence of the people in accordance with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII, the readings may be given in the vernacular, using editions recognised by the Apostolic See.

Commentary
The normal practice is for a priest to read the Latin, with a translation following immediately or to read all of them prior to the sermon.

Text continues
Art. 7 If a group of lay faithful, as mentioned in art. 5 § 1, has not obtained satisfaction to their requests from the pastor, they should inform the diocesan bishop. The bishop is strongly requested to satisfy their wishes. If he cannot arrange for such celebration to take place, the matter should be referred to the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”.

Art. 8 A bishop who, desirous of satisfying such requests, but who for various reasons is unable to do so, may refer the problem to the Commission “Ecclesia Dei” to obtain counsel and assistance.

Commentary
One wonders again what “rules of engagement” (not that it should be a fight!) that the Commission has been given.  Catholics long for the day when this Commission no longer has any work to do.

Text continues
Art. 9 § 1 The pastor, having attentively examined all aspects, may also grant permission to use the earlier ritual for the administration of the Sacraments of Baptism, Marriage, Penance, and the Anointing of the Sick, if the good of souls would seem to require it.

Commentary
The Bishop can no longer demand that marriages and funerals and the rest should be conducted according to the new books.  It is now just up to the faithful to find friendly priests.

Text continues
§ 2 Ordinaries are given the right to celebrate the Sacrament of Confirmation using the earlier Roman Pontifical, if the good of souls would seem to require it.

Commentary
The Bishop of Linz in Austria has done so, among others, but clearly they will now be joined by many more Bishops who wish to express their charitable jurisdiction over those who support the Latin Mass. 

Text continues
§ 2 Clerics ordained “in sacris constitutis” may use the Roman Breviary promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962.

Commentary
Fortunately, a Bishop even he wanted to be Big Brother had no real means of checking on this.  It does, however, mean that there will be no more furtive Breviary reading!

Art.10 The ordinary of a particular place, if he feels it appropriate, may erect a personal parish in accordance with can. 518 for celebrations following the ancient form of the Roman rite, or appoint a chaplain, while observing all the norms of law.

Commentary
Some Bishops will try to confine the effect of this document by erecting personal parishes. However, such parishes inevitably enhance the profile of the Latin Mass in a Diocese. The Pope’s intention, however, seems to support a two track approach.

Text continues

Art. 11 The Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”, erected by John Paul II in 1988, continues to exercise its function. Said Commission will have the form, duties and norms that the Roman Pontiff wishes to assign it.

Art. 12 This Commission, apart from the powers it enjoys, will exercise the authority of the Holy See, supervising the observance and application of these dispositions.

Commentary
I suspect that this statement gives the Commission enhanced powers in dealing with particular situations.

Text continues
We order that everything We have established with these Apostolic Letters issued as Motu Proprio be considered as “established and decreed”, and to be observed from 14 September of this year, Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, whatever there may be to the contrary. From Rome, at St. Peter’s, 7 July 2007, third year of Our Pontificate.

Commentary
That which was lost has now been discovered again. This is just as true of the Latin Mass as it was for the Cross whose discovery by St Helena is commemorated every year on September 14th.

Scotland's Catholic Bishops said today: "The publication of the document on the use of the Roman liturgy prior to the reform of 1970 reflects the pastoral concern of the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI for those who find themselves drawn to that form of the Eucharistic celebration – a pastoral concern which the Bishops of Scotland share 

"The Bishops of Scotland also share Pope Benedict XVI’s concern about the unity of the Church. In both his writings and his statements the Pope has reminded us of the centrality of the Eucharist as the source of unity in the life of the Church.  Writing earlier this year in the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis the Holy Father says, “The fact that the one Eucharist is celebrated in each Diocese around its own Bishop helps us see how those particular Churches subsist in and from the Church.” (15).

"In thanking the Holy Father for this most recent document, the Bishops of Scotland wish to note that since 1970 Catholics in Scotland have embraced the reform of the liturgy, with the same openness of heart as they had already begun to accept the other decisions of the Second Vatican Council. The Holy Father’s decision to issue this document is motivated above all by his desire to mend divisions where they have occurred and to prevent future divisions by helping to bring about “an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church”. Echoing what the Holy Father says, the Bishops wish to point out that there is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal (1962 and 1970) and that they in fact demonstrate that in the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress but no rupture.

"Having consulted widely throughout the Church before issuing this document and the norms it sets down, the Pope reminds bishops that each of them is moderator of the liturgy in his own diocese and has the responsibility to be watchful to ensure that all is done in peace and serenity.  Bishops are invited to monitor the effect of the norms so that the whole Church can be involved in an evaluation of them in three years time.

"The Bishops of Scotland acknowledge this responsibility and intend to study the Holy Father’s document thoroughly to ensure that that its provisions are fully available to those Catholics in Scotland who may wish to encounter the mystery of the Eucharist through the form of celebration set out in the 1962 edition of the Roman Missal.

"The Bishops of Scotland pray that God will continue to bless our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI in his ministry of love and reconciliation. We ask that the Blessed Virgin Mary will intercede with her Divine Son on behalf of the Church so that together with our Holy Father the Pope we will all be faithful and obedient sons and daughters of God as we carry out his will."

Comments

[Jarlath (Dublin)]

""It’s a fact that Ireland has become more secular, but the more it does the more religious the minority becomes.” (an unnamed priest).

"And I think that probably accounts for the embarrassment and shame ND and Jardush (Dublin) feel about contemporary Irish Catholicism."
Posted by Mary Shelley 30 July

Whether driven by ignorance or sarcasm makes no matter. Your posts on the Irish and Irish Catholics are distinguished by incomprehension!

For a start, the "MINORITY" in Ireland are Protestant, as any primary or secondary student, north or south, could inform you. Roman Catholics are the MAJORITY. This fact would appear to make nonsense of the priestly 'quote'.

Coming from a perspective of almost total ignorance, what you "think" Irish Catholics feel is irrelevant. To presume a pseudo-psychological opinion on the condition of a generation shows only further incomprehension. The 'shame' and 'embarrassment' articulated here were directed at Catholics who shame the Church by anachronistic displacement (you'll find the term on the web).

The address to Niamh Devlin:

"name-calling is never a good way to dominate an argument in any case. It addresses faults in the person, as opposed to faults in the point of view."

is risible in the context of a post deriding the veracity of another contributor.

PS. My name is JARLATH. You'll find it on the Net! Saint Jarlath - died 500 or thereabouts - feast day 6th June.

[Dr. Irene Lancaster]

I think that from now on accessing my blog might be best, as this is not the forum for theological disputes - yet!

I will leave with a thought.

In 1982, I was invited to address Primary School Teachers in the north of England at Chester College, now a university.

The subject was how to teach Judaism in the RE curriculum.

On arrival, I was most surprised to hear the Principal of the College telling the hundreds of delegates present that the NT would be banned under the Race Relations Act were it to be written today, seeing that it was indelibly anti-semitic and its writings had caused millions of deaths and demonising of Jews throughout the ages.

[Dr. Irene Lancaster]

Martin: why don't you google the word?

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Finally, we don't need Parkes to tell us about the anti-Judaism of the NT: it is there for everyone to see..."
- Dr Irene Lancaster, 2 August 2007, 14:56:44

It might be of some help, Dr Lancaster, if you defined the term 'anti-Judaism'. Given that the NT in general, and the Acts of the Apostles in particular, is all about the Christians seeking converts from among the Jews, and also other social groups in the Empire, I can understand your negative attitude towards it. To promote one religion must mean denigrating another; the two can not co-exist intellectually. But I don't think this is what you mean by being 'anti-Semitic', is it?

[Dr. Irene Lancaster]

I would love to know chapter on verse on Parkes' anti-Catholicism.

As for the Catholic Church not regarding Parkes as a priest, judging from this blog, things haven't changed very much, have they?

I'm really not interested in all this. Parkes is an expert on the Church throughout the ages: this is generally accepted in academic scholarship, and what G. Smith thinks of this is irrelevant.

Being defensive just won't work, I'm afraid, and neither will passing the buck.

Finally, we don't need Parkes to tell us about the anti-Judaism of the NT: it is there for everyone to see and is still causing dreadful problems, not least in present-day (Catholic) Poland, for instance.

[Martin]

"with the Catholic Church at long last admitting their complicity in the Shoah"

Shoah? What is this?

[Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA]

More meat from Revd Dr. James Parkes for some of your bloggers:

http://irenelancaster.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/08/mediaeval-chris.html

[Geoffrey Smith]

James Parkes (1896-1981) was an Anglican clergyman, at a time when anti-Catholic prejudice was virulent in Britain. From the Catholic point of view, his theology was full of holes, and no doubt this coloured his attitude towards the Catholic Church, which did not regard him as a priest. He would, I think, have been elated to stick the charge of anti-semitism on the Church. I don't recall any statement from Dr Parkes telling us who doctored the New Testament to make it look as though it was the Jews who had Jesus put to death. Perhaps he tried to find out but never succeeded? Then again, maybe you have remembered, Dr Lancaster? Names and dates, please.

[Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA]

Given the dangerous fabrications about Jewish history which have appeared on this particular blog, it may be useful to consider the work of Revd Dr. James Parkes, which I am just re-reading and which I have just blogged on myself.

http://irenelancaster.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/08/the-abnormal-ch.html

Christian theologian, James Parkes, makes it abundantly clear that it is the early Catholic Church Fathers who were abnormal in their theology of hate towards Jews and Judaism and that it is this which led to anti-semitism.

His exact words are ('A History of the Jewish People', p. 62)

'Jews were living in Europe before Christianity emerged or became dominant.... On the other hand, Christian theologians had taken up a position and rooted themselves deeply in it, before the Church received the power to express its sentiments in legislation....

Jews were not abnormal. Into this 'normal' situation came the abnormality of the Christian theological conception of the Jews as men set apart by their crime of deicide...

[This Christian view] was abnormal in the sense that it was not based on the evidence of contemporary facts, but on the Christian version of their past history in the Bible. It is in this abnormality that 'antisemitism' has its origin.'

The Parkes Library to which I link on my blog is situated at Southampton University and I suggest that some of the bloggers on this site pay it a visit.

The concern about the present Pope's decision regarding a possible reintroduction of various rites is whether there will be a concomitant resurgence in that antisemitism which has so blotted the Catholic Church for nearly 2000 years and which was materially altered post-Holocaust, with the Catholic Church at long last admitting their complicity in the Shoah and other crimes against the Jewish people.

[Martin]

"The point is that the Jews did not kill Jesus and did not want him killed"

He was arrested by the agents of the High Priest, condemned by the Sanhedrin for blasphemy and handed over to the Romans with a demand that he be put to death by them as he had infringed their law. When Pilate offered to spare him, they called instead for Barabbas.

Which part of that suggests to you that the Jewish authorities did not want Jesus dead and were not instrumental in procuring that death?

[Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA]

The point is that the Jews did not kill Jesus and did not want him killed

Why?

Because there were a lot of people around at the time who sounded like him and the Jews had more things to think about than just one more person who had messianic tendencies.

It suited the followers of Jesus to blame the 'Jews' for the attitudes of the Romans, so that their new creed would gain credence and they would not be persecuted.

As for stiff-necked, I think we all know which of the contributors to this blog are guilty of that!

And there are some around now as well, including here in Jerusalem.

[Robert Lloyd]

What a delightful bunch of loonies you all are ! You certainly make Richard Dawkins case for him !!!!

(rg writes: me included?)

[J Pearce]

"Secondly, name-calling is never a good way to dominate an argument in any case. It addresses faults in the person, as opposed to faults in the point of view. As the name-calling increases the quality of the debate decreases...It is almost a straight inverse relationship."

Debate? You're having a laugh! All I've seen from the likes of you and Mr. Smith are attempts to personally discredit anyone who holds Catholicism up for the glaring corporate faults it so obviously has. All you appear intent on doing is winding people up with rubbish, then turning it around to castigate them for not "debating" the subject seriously. Mr. Smith is quite the expert at this, you will notice.

[Mary Shelley]

I found this quote from an Irish priest in today's Times:

"It’s a fact that Ireland has become more secular, but the more it does the more religious the minority becomes.”

And I think that probably accounts for the embarrassment and shame ND and Jardush (Dublin) feel about contemporary Irish Catholicism. Not knowing how to account for it they fall back on the old charges of 'brainwashing' and/or 'ignorance.' But what's happening is more subtle and--to this Catholic anyway--wonderful.

This will be it from me.

Mary S.

[Geoffrey Smith]

Jim,
the Gospels are not, and were never intended to be, detailed diaries of the evangelists or exhaustive biographies of Jesus Christ. This is the big mistake that all Protestants make when referring to the Bible. They ignore John 21:25 and pretend that Scripture can give them all they need to know about living the Christian life. You are falling into the same trap. There is no need to doubt the authenticity of the Gospels, as far as they go, or the truth of what they contain. If they can not be cross-verified by an abundance of contemporary documents, that does not mean that they must be untrue or inaccurate. That is a non sequitur. In the final analysis, as I explained to Mr Simon Icke on this thread, the last word on this subject goes to the Catholic Church, who alone produced and published the Bible, together with the Gospels, and vouches for their validity and authenticity. Only the Author of the Gospels knows what they should or should not contain, and that excludes any purely human agency.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"...how dare you suggest that crucifixion was any form of Jewish punishment".
- Dr Irene Lancaster, 29 July 2007, 14:25:57

In my post, I stated that the Romans imposed their own method of execution on Jesus, at the behest of the Jewish mob in Jerusalem. Whether the Jews themselves would have used this method, in preference to some other, is beside the point. The point is, they wanted Jesus dead and the Romans obliged.

"In addition, there were many Jewish miracle workers around at the time of Jesus..."
-op.cit.
All of them raising the dead, restoring sight to the blind, curing the sick, making the lame walk, changing water into wine, etc. Beats rain-making hollow, I'd say.

"Just to get one thing straight: Jews never had clout with anyone, EVER, and accusing us of deicide is an extremely defamatory step, which you may wish to reconsider".
- op.cit. (my capitals)
So, Joshua never really invaded Canaan and defeated the Canaanites?It was all a legend. David never killed Goliath and the Israelites never repelled the Philistines?
You should write another book, Dr: "Deconstructing the Torah".
By the way, how does one kill a supreme spiritual being? Must be quite a feat, murdering God. Especially one Who rises from the dead just three days later. Just imagine the frustration those poor Jews must have felt! In this, as in so many other aspects of Christian certitude, your misunderstanding is painful to read. Jesus had two natures, a divine nature and a human one. His human nature was killed on the cross; his divine nature was imperishable. The Jews demanded the death of Jesus the human being; his divine nature was absolutely outside their control.

"There were loads of Jews who had their own take on scripture, tradition, etc. It was a time of flux all round".
- op.cit.
It always has been, Dr, and still is today: Orthodox, Hasidic, Reformed, Liberal, etc. Judaism is really a misnomer, isn't it? We should talk about 'Jewries' (plural)to be strictly correct.

"As I stated in previous postings, the NT has been doctored..."
-op.cit.
Doctored by whom? When? In what manner? You decline to mention any names or places or dates. I can't say I'm surprised; I'd be reticent, too, if I had to profess ignorance on that point. You seem to have developed a standard apologia for answering such a strong case: if you don't like the argument, trash the source of any evidence in its favour. Such erudition! You and Mr Pearce would make a great team.

"Your blog certainly brings some out of the closet, Ruth. I actually blame Benedict for causing the ambiguity in the first place".
- op.cit.
This remark is tantamount to calling me a bigot. As I pointed out to another poster on this blog recently, that word 'bigot' is a two-edged sword which can cut both parties in a verbal dispute. It applies to you as much as to me, Dr Lancaster, and I would ask you to refrain from using it in any future post. As Martin has already explained earlier in this thread, the use of the word 'perfidious' in a prayer for the Jews was banned by Pope John XXIII as long ago as 1962, indeed earlier than that, in 1959. A prayer for the conversion of the Jews is likely to be retained in the soon-to-be-reintroduced Latin Mass, but we make no apology for that. If Jews do not feel inclined to pray for us Catholics, or even Christians in general, it will be an indication of their stiff-necked nature - a quality lamented by Moses.

[Mary Shelley]

Niahm Devlin,

Let’s back up:

You introduced yourself with the sweeping assertion that Catholics know nothing about the scandals of the medieval Papacy, the Bible or the post-Nicea Church:

Devlin Charge of Catholic Ignorance:

“In fact, very few Catholics know much about the bible. We learn about the Church - about Peter, the Pope, Mary, the saints and the value of suffering. Most Catholics know nothing about married Popes or the political perfidy of the families of the papacy.”

[The scandals in the Church were one of the major causes of the Reformation. That is why I asked if Catholics in Ireland were ignorant about the Reformation].

You continued:

“But, if even University College Dublin where I was educated, can teach the true and terrible history in relation to Jews, and other peoples, I imagine history departments in most other Universities and colleges across the world do the same.”

Niamh Devlin | 23 Jul 2007 22:02:06

[which seems hardly germane to your charge that Catholics know nothing about the Bible or the medieval Church. You seem to mention that only educated Catholics know the hidden ‘truth’ about Catholicism. This seems an updated variety of Gnosticism, an ancient heresy.]

And looking at both the history syllabus for the Republic and the classroom visit posted above, I would say that Catholics are taught about the Reformation, or at least teaching about the period is available, whether they partake of the subject or not. So your ‘ignorant’ Catholic assertion seems shaky, to say the least.

ND further charges Catholic persecution reflex:

You just don't concentrate hard enough Mary. It's the Catholic persecution 'reflex'. It gets in the way.

Posted by: Niamh Devlin | 26 Jul 2007 19:31:56

I have a problem with the above. Firstly, how is a lack of concentration related to a Catholic persecution ‘reflex’? It doesn’t follow.

Secondly, name-calling is never a good way to dominate an argument in any case. It addresses faults in the person, as opposed to faults in the point of view. As the name-calling increases the quality of the debate decreases...It is almost a straight inverse relationship.

[jim rogers, sydney]

Geoff,
That's just one of the things about which we disagree.
Authentic historical documents? Well, yes they are real documents, with various versions of different age, in different languages, that are not all quite the same in content.
The content, in other words the events and conversations recorded, however, cannot be cross verified as ALL being authentic historically. What percentage is true is unknown.
The authors can be disputed, and to what extent 2 of the 4 were witnesses, or all second hand scribes using the names and ideas or opinion of witnesses, or recording an eclectic mix of oral stories around at the time, is not known with certainty.
The decision to believe the gospels as witness statements involves faith in the face of valid doubt.

[Dr. Irene Lancaster]

Geoffrey, your intemperate reaction does you and your religion no credit. Sorry!

How on earth could the Jews, who were a vassal of Rome at the time, had any clout whatsoever, and how dare you suggest that crucifixion was any form of Jewish punishment.

To this day, some Orthodox Jews will not use this sign: + in maths teaching, because it reminds them of the cross on which they were executed by Romans and others.

In addition, there were many Jewish miracle workers around at the time of Jesus, such as 'Honi the Rain-maker' and others who talked about the 'son of God', meaning any human being. Similarly 'messiah' means anyone 'anointed by God', eg Cyrus the Persian, or even our present Queen. Just get hold of footage of her coronation and you will see what I mean.

Just to get one thing straight: Jews never had clout with anyone, ever, and accusing us of deicide is an extremely defamatory step, which you may wish to reconsider.

The fact that Jews never regarded Jesus as anything other than human is beside the point.

Of course, he was Jewish as well, which does tend to rock your boat a bit, Geoffrey. There were loads of Jews who had their own take on scripture, tradition etc. It was a time of flux all round.

As I have stated in previous postings, the NT has been doctored, just as the Hebrew Bible was edited by learned rabbis, who included the books of Songs of Songs, Esther and Ecclesiastes, against the consensus of many.

I actually do agree with Chris Gillibrand in his last post.

Hitler and his associates took soundings after Kristallnacht and found that Catholic areas were far less likely to approve of such behaviour (and many disapproved strongly to begin with) than similar Protestant areas taken at random.

I remember including this fact in my course on Jewish history, much to the upset of Protestants present, who had thought that the Holocaust was a 'Catholic plot' against the Jews.

Your blog certainly brings some out of the closet, Ruth. I actually blame Benedict for causing the ambiguity in the first place.

finally, I don't know who Geoffrey means by 'we Christians', because I am writing an article about the recent Anglican-Jewish commission which has just taken place here in Jerusalem and, for the first time, the Church of England admits the Church's own guilt for the persecution and murder of Jews in the past, and pledges itself to fight such attacks on Jews in the future, especially from within the churches themselves.

I believe that in doing this, they are only following in the footsteps of the Catholic Church at Vatican II. I am sure that Chris can put us right on this one.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"It seems to me that the gospel accounts read more like a historical novel, with the facts and embellishments impossible to separate".
- Jim Rogers, 28 July 2007, 23:21:26

The Gospels are quite different from the 'Da Vinci Code', Mr Rogers.
They are authentic, historical documents recording statements and events witnessed by the writers themselves. Quite different from the pulp fiction of Mr Dan Brown.

[jim rogers, sydney]

I should add and stress that the scholars that follow the standard Church line, and support the NT account, are following the only written evidence we have, namely the NT itself, and look at what reasonably may have happened in the light of that, which is a very valid form of argument. I concede that readily.
I should clarify that I'm not saying a death sentence wasn't passed on Jesus, just that it may have been an unusual sentence if the events unfolded as described, that the full Sanhedrin didn't meet so it was all highly irregular, and Crucifixion was a Roman sentence not a Jewish one. It seems to me that the gospel accounts read more like a historical novel, with the facts and embellishments impossible to separate.

[Dr. Irene Lancaster]

I think that the problem of 'proving' what the NT says about Jesus is that the only other source is Josephus, who worked for the Roman authorities.

It's a bit like the BBC's recent reaction to the freeing of Alan Johnston from Gaza. Nobody officially thanked the Israeli government for their work behind the scenes, because if the BBC wants to report from Gaza in the future, they will have to continue protecting the safety of their employees, so they thanked Hamas and Fatah by name, and 'others', or 'all those who helped', in a more general way.

So with the NT and the Romans - fear leads to all types of suppressions and one-sidedness of approach and writing is certainly not exempt - as we know. Look at the furore surrounding 'The Satanic Verses'.

Regarding the historical evidence or otherwise of the Hebrew Bible, to which you referred, the book

'The Elements of Judaism'

is available from Amazon and probably the best book on the subject of 'sacred versus literal history'.

I can't really give a lesson in theology on this blog, as many find me too long-winded already, but Ruth can give you my e-mail details and we can continue this off-thread.

[Chris Gillibrand]

Further to my post of 12th July, a kind man in Australia has sent me exactly what I was looking for. two maps- one illustrating the percentage of Catholics and the second, the Nazi vote across Germany. Far from assisting Nazism, Catholicism was a major obstacle to the Nazi rise to power.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"It is impossible that the Jews killed Jesus, or that the Pharisees would have had anything to do with it".
- Dr Irene Lancaster, 27 July 2007, 10:20:10

Who demanded the release of Barabbas in preference to Jesus? The Jews or the Romans? Caiaphas or Pontius Pilate? Who nailed Him to the cross and at whose behest? Who did the Jews' dirty work for them? Sorry, Dr Lancaster, we Christians have got it right. Your deconstruction of history just won't wash.

[jim rogers, sydney]

That's helpful, Irene.

As a non (but earlier in life) believer, I find it confusing trying to sort out what are true facts in scriptures, and what is mythical legend. My understanding is that all the texts that Christians call the Old testament, from the Pentateuch on, was possibly/probably written after 800BC, largely by unknown men. They are filled with mythic legend, allegories, metaphorical writings, fables and tall stories, but often on a backbone of history, like a historical novel. They may sometimes include real, and at other times embellished or fictitious, historical accounts of ancient peoples. They are sometimes poetry, legal codes, or wisdom sayings. It encompasses a vast evolving reflection with unquestionably primitive polytheistic and animistic origins in the religions of the Near East, towards a tribal rather bloody-minded but single god (eg Judges), then gradually refined into a unique ethical monotheism. It often highlights its God to be malevolent, vindictive, capricious, childish and ruthless. He is at other times loving, nurturing, caring and benign. Which characters were real, and which were composites of past heroes/heroines, or total fabrication? Which of the accounts of the real ancestors and peoples were true, and which were embellished but essentially true, and which were totally fabricated, or alternatively fiction making up part of perhaps otherwise true stories? For example, I've read in more than one book that the Exodus from Egypt can't be verified in any other historical record outside of the OT, nor Moses existence.

I agree the virgin birth is unlikely, and have read elsewhere your explanation of the mistranslation of the word from the original writings. I have also read that the whole process of Jesus' interrogation/interview by the high priests, and his trial, would be extremely unlikely to have occurred in the manner it is recorded, and that a death sentence would have been unusual.

Everyday amateurs like me obviously get a slanted view, because my reading of biblical history and scholarship is limited. It is difficult to know what to believe, especially as there are so many intelligent, well educated, hard working scholars of apparent integrity who have researched their area thoroughly, yet come up with opposing views. All NT scholars deemed respected by the Church obviously see the evidence very differently to you and other Jewish scholars, and differently to some Christian scholars with more radical opinions.

At times it makes it seem that much of religious belief comes down to fideism, which makes it hard to teach to someone like me. Which things are literally true, or are integral to a healthy faith, and which can or should be dismissed or put in a take it or leave it, doesn't really matter basket, I haven't a clue. Unfortunately I suspect that the exact truth of what happened during Jesus public lifetime is lost forever, and was never recorded. What we have is an amazing set of documents outlining some great ideals, but the divine implications of the narrative about Jesus life seem like fiction to me.

[Niamh Devlin]

Mary: NO. I did not say anywhere that history was my main subject. Literature was my honours discipline. I now teach it. Also had classes in history, philosophy (with the gorgeous Richard Kearney), and psychology. You see Mary, they all feed into each other. I could, had I wished, also have studied sociology.

Whatever, I'm puzzled as to why you should be so personally interested; in me, my grandmother, my education, whether I'm from - North or South? It must be very important to you if you have spent time on the web trying to trip me up?

Really sorry to say this, but you are NOT important to me. I have read this blog for a long time but have never before felt the need to post in defence of good people who were being abused in the name of Catholicism.

Last word from me. What you preach Mary, and the ill-mannered sneering with which you treat others, is not what I understand of how Catholics should behave as Christians. That's all.

[Geoffrey Smith]

Ruth, the point raised by Mary and Niamh concerning the bowing of the head when meeting a Catholic priest in the street: this is done out of respect for the probability that the priest is carrying the Blessed Sacrament on his person while on his way to visit a sick parishioner.
Some particularly devout Catholics would feel it even more respectful to step off the pavement and allow him to pass without hindrance.
I suppose it's all a question of the degree of one's piety.

[Chris Gillibrand]

I had in my mind the post-war prosperity of the two countries. My wife was almost literally born among the rubble to which Austria was reduced by the Nazi times. She thought that it was normal for houses to be destroyed and for unexploded bombs to be going off every now and then.

[Mary Shelley]

Send them to Ireland. The Ordinary and Higher syllabus looked very impressive *and* it was taught chronologically as well, a big plus.

Page 20 is Reform and Reformation in Tudor Ireland 1494-1558. Very interesting presentation indeed.

Maybe they do a correspondence course? Must say when I hired graduate trainees at my last firm, the Irish graduates were very well educated...

[Jarlath (Dublin)]

Niamh is not alone MR Smith. Few of us (Irish Catholics), have noticed Brady. See Wikipedia.

"Though holding the highest position within the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland Brady is perceived to have made little impact .... There were disclosures of an avalanche of child sexual abuse incidents involving religious personnel, many of which took place over three decades...

But the absence of effective Church policies during his tenure [1996-] to deal with this has meant that the stature and moral authority of the Church in Ireland has diminished considerably as a consequence.

The Church ... did not display the principles of good governance - transparency, responsiveness, accountability, effectiveness and efficiency and public confidence waned when the impact of this sadly became evident.

Brady's lackadaisical leadership was obvious ... the 11 years it took to finally laicise the former president of St Patrick's College Maynooth, Monsignor Miceál Ledwith after he abruptly left following allegations concerning a sexual relationship with a minor; [he] abandoned Catholicism and publicly held it disdain.

In what was perceived as a snub Pope John Paul II chose to make the then Archbishop of Dublin and Primate of Ireland, Desmond Connell a cardinal in 2001... It was the first time in a century that the red hat went to the Archbishop of Dublin rather than the Archbishop of Armagh."

Mr Gillibrand offers Austria and Bavaria as examples of prosperous countries under Catholicism - interestingly, both embraced Nazism as did Catholic Croatia, Lithuania and the Slovak Republic led by Roman Catholic priest Jozef Tiso.

While Austria is a constitutional parliamentary republic, in 1929, the president was vested with the authority to dissolve the parliament, a power typically not held by heads of executive branches of parliamentary republics.

This move away from a government steered predominantly by a fairly large and (by definition) deliberative body, towards a system concentrating power in the hands of a single autonomous leader was made to appease the para-fascist movements (Heimwehr or later the Ostmärkische Sturmscharen).

In 1934, following years of increasingly violent political strife and gradual erosion of the rule of law, the ruling Christian Social Party, which by then had turned to full-scale Austrofascism, formally replaced the constitution by a new basic law defining Austria as an authoritarian corporate state.

The Austro-fascist constitution was in force until Austria surrendered itself (by popular acclaim) to Nazi Germany in 1938, ceasing to exist as a sovereign state. The Constitution of Austria was eventually reinstated on May 1, 1945, Austria having re-established itself as an independent republic shortly before Nazi Germany's definitive collapse. Interestingly, the modifications enacted in 1929 were not then rescinded and essentially remain in effect until this day.

Prosperous, perhaps, but with anti-Semitism still prevalent - even after nearly total elimination of Jewish communities in both - Bavaria and Austria are hardly examples the rest of the free world would seek to emulate. Neither can they be compared with Ireland or Spain or numerous South American countries where the majority of the Faithful were in dire poverty and ignorance which the Hierarchy did nothing to alleviate.

That is not to dismiss the fantastic work done by individual priests and nuns. But nor should it ignore the terrible injury inflicted by other priests and nuns e.g. Magdalene laundries and Industrial schools.

Apologists for the Church simply air-brush history. It won't do. I agree with Niamh Devlin. Ireland is a country which has moved forward and explored its own history; the history of persecution of those who were not Catholic and a history of oppression of poor peasants and working-class Catholics. The Church fomented division in Ireland. We are no longer in thrall to the fear that association with other people means we are on the road to Hell.

Those of us who still attend Mass have a variety of personal reasons for doing. Niamh is correct. It's a habit. It's the religion into which we are born. It's familiar. More people in Ireland today have a consciousness of a personal relationship with God. The Hierarchy have little relevance.

I don't think admonitions from such as Geoffrey Smith and Mary Shelley, who seem to use the Church for their own attention-seeking ends will change any minds. Again I am in agreement with Niamh - they make educated Catholics ashamed.

[Oliver NIcholson]

I once heard a distinguished Congregationalist New Testament scholar describe how he went to visit the Pope, robed in the scarlet superfine and black velvet of an Oxford Doctor of Divinity. As he left his hotel, the bell-boys insisted on kneeling and kissing his wedding ring. Apparently his wife said she had never felt so de trop in her life.
The Reformation is the least of the history they don't do in schools any more. In England my children seem to study the Nazis and nothing but the Nazis and in America it was all the Holocaust and Martin Luther King. They do it better at Hogwarts.
OPN

[Mary Shelley]

Well, Ruth, I was writing about Irish history as taught in the Republic. I don’t see how an Irish youngster could understand Cromwell and the record of Protestantism in Ireland without knowing about the Reformation. A quick look at the Republic’s website led me to the Irish association of history teachers (post primary) and the following report of a class inspection:

“The visit to the class preparing to stage a debate on the Reformation revealed the classroom already well laid out. There were four desks for the principal speakers representing the Pope, Martin Luther, John Calvin and Huldreich Zwingli facing the rows of seats set out for the partisan audience, which comprised the remainder of the class. A number of the students wore T-shirts indicating whom they supported. Their enthusiasm for the debate was readily apparent.”

http://www.education.ie/servlet/blobservlet/insp_looking_at_history.pdf (p. 27)

As well as the following, a leaving certificate History syllabus:

www.scoilnet.ie/hist/Docs/lc_history_sy.pdf

in topics for early Modern History field of study starts with the Reformation: in the context of Ireland
the Reformation in Europe and religion and power in “Europe and the wider world”.

So Irish students intent on reading history will have covered the Reformation before they get to uni.

Niamh mentions that she read history at UCD, hence she had to have studied some Irish history in her pre-uni education. The field is taught chronologically, unlike how it is taught currently in the UK which is by topic--a big mistake IMO.

Hence, I still find it difficult to believe that an Irish student admitted to read history at UCD could be ignorant of the Reformation.

[Hugh Manitas]

For anyone who has read Geoffrey Smith's denigration of my posts and those of other earnest contributors, both with faith and without, I would like to make the point that he has misrepresented my position. I am certainly not anti-Catholic, although I find his particular brand of catholicism fairly unappealing and I challenge, sometimes in strong terms, the relevance of the institutional position of faith groups. I am not an atheist, in the sense that I seek to assert that there are no gods.

I have a socio-political interest in religion from a humanitarian perspective. I believe that there is a fundamental human right to hold religious views, but not to affect or manipulate the lives of those who do not share them. I have no time for unintelligent name calling or trading insults.

[Dr. Irene Lancaster]

Frank has asked my views on the New Testament.

I think that about 80% of it is based on Jewish teaching current at the time of Jesus.

I also think that it is slanted to curry favour with the Roman authorities and, as with most new movements, to give a distance from the 'mother' religion, in this case 'Judaism'.

Although, to be fair, we are not quite sure what 'Judaism' actually was at that time, as there were many sects and groups, revolutionaries, as well as those who sued for peace with the Romans, in exchange for being allowed to set up learning centres.

For two thousand years, the learning centres flourished more or less, with study being regarded as the essential defining factor of Judaism in diaspora, although, as you know, persecution and murder of Jews and entire communities was also rife.

I should add that Jews also remained in Israel (renamed Palestina by the Romans, in mockery of the Jews, and in memory of the Philistines. Hence in modern Hebrew 'Palestinian' meant till very recently a Jewish inhabitant of Israel).

However, I do think that Paul's translations of key Hebrew terms, such - i.e. Torah as 'nomos', which came to be regarded as law, or even legalism, has left a legacy of misunderstanding and mistrust of Judaism, which is with us even today.

I also think that his attitude to circumcision demonstrates the lack of understanding so common in people who convert to other religions and take up new 'causes'.

My husband, Professor Les Lancaster, has recently had to defend the idea of circumcision on Radio 4's Beyond Belief, which is a bit much, really. But all down to prejudice first mooted by Paul in the NT.

I also think that the term 'Pharisee' has been misunderstood. The Pharisees were the radical thinkers who replaced the Temple and priesthood by study and democratic institutions, such as the Sanhedrin, composed of 71 members, so that in debate, one side would win - not necessarily the cleverest, but the side with the bigger number of votes.

It is impossible that the Jews killed Jesus, or that the Pharisees would have had anything to do with it. The time of year would not have been correct; capital punishment was abhorred by the Sanhedrin, and you would have needed four witnesses to find anyone guilty of a capital offence (which is why, in 1948, the modern State of Israel immediately abolished the death sentence inherited by the British during the Mandate period, though otherwise retaining British law intact).

In other words, I think that the historicity of Jesus would have to be confirmed by more than one source, which is normal in historical research. Ditto for Moses, Joseph etc, by the way.

I cannot believe in the Virgin birth, because apart from anything else, the Hebrew in Isaiah refers to the past rather than to the future, and the term means 'a girl of marriageable age', i.e. about 12 or 13 in those days, and not a 'virgin', for which there is another word in Hebrew.

I could go on, but I hope that this has helped a bit and if you want to continue this line, please contact me via Ruth, who will give you my e-mail details.

I often write about these and similar subjects on the blog:

at http://irenelancaster.typepad.com/my_weblog

Finally, I am involved at the highest level in interfaith in Israel and am currently meeting with staff at St. George's Anglican Cathedral, East Jerusalem, on a regular basis.

My book, Deconstructing the Bible, deals with all these issues and also Muslim attitudes, and is available in paperback from Amazon.

[Mary Shelley]

Niamh,

How you could reach the age of 18 or 19 in Ireland without knowing about the Reformation? How was Irish history—pre university-- taught without any reference to the Reformation? Are you saying that you had to specialize in history at university in order to learn about the Reformation? I find that scarcely credible....

(rg writes: Mary that is not so incredible. I learned nothing about it throughout my grammar/comprehensive school education, nothing at all.)

Additionally I asked you where in the Republic of Ireland it was the custom for local people in public to step off the pavement and to bow their heads as their local parish priest or nun passed by. A Catholic will bow his head if the Eucharist is in the Tabernacle (in church), in the presence of the consecrated host (in public), and (formerly, not so much currently) at the very name of Jesus. Very pious Catholics will bow their heads when they pass a church (because the host is therein). But bowing to a priest in public as you would bow to your Saviour reeks of sacrilege. Therefore, I find your assertion on this point difficult to believe.

(Mary, this is not difficult to believe. It does happen, I assure you. Or at least it used to. It is a sign of respect for the office. My father is an Anglican priest and occasionally it would even happen to him. rg)

Try to post your answers with no ad homs (ad hominem—ie attacking the person rather than the views).

(Mary, this is a good point and I would be grateful if every contributor to this blog would do this. Everyone.....rg)

[Geoffrey Smith]

"I guess the Pope feels the Dalai Lama should convert as well as Dr Irene Lancaster and all Jews, as well as all Buddhists and Muslims and the rest".
- Frank, Sydney, 27 July 2007, 07:43:55

Give yourself a pat on the back, Frank!
Absolutely on the ball! But then, you see, we can hardly do otherwise, can we? We Catholics really do believe in the teaching of the Bible (Matt. 28:19), we always have and we always will. It's going to be like this until the end of time and
nothing is going to change. That is why the ecumenical movement, which seemed such a good idea in 1965, is now moribund. It is also, I would think, one of the main reasons why Pope Benedict issued the Motu Proprio in the first place: the Second Vatican Council made some bad mistakes in Church governance, and now those errors are being corrected. And not before time.

[frank, sydney]

Ratzinger, 2000: "...God has willed that the church founded by Him be the instrument for the salvation of all humanity. This truth of faith...rules out, in a radical way...the belief that one religion is as good as another."

The above suggests the Catholic Church thinks it should proselytize to all people of all other faiths, so to pray for one group to convert, over any other, would be pretty silly. I guess the Pope feels the Dalai Lama should convert as well as Dr Irene Lancaster and all Jews, as well as all Buddhists and Muslims and the rest.

[Geoffrey Smith]

P.S. Archbishop Sean Brady is the Archbishop of Armagh, not Dublin, Ms Devlin. But then, you already knew that, didn't you? You must have missed him when you went round Ireland counting heads.
If Mgr Brady can welcome the Latin Mass, why can't you?

[Geoffrey Smith]

"What a surprise Geoff!......It is all too predictable and boring".
- Niamh Devlin, 26 July 2007, 17:33:30

Just as I suspected. All rhetoric. Not one word relevant to the question I asked. The thread began with the publication of the Motu Proprio, and at least I did refer to it in my last post, but Ms Devlin has even ignored this in her response. Still, she made one thing quite clear: Mr Manitas will have to look to his laurels! There's a new kid on the block and she's going to make his brand of anti-Catholicism look fairly amateurish.

[Hugh Manitas]

OK Geoff, so you take yourself very seriously. It's Ok for you to insult Niamh ("Are you really a Catholic Ms Devlin?... Are we holier than most of our fellow Irish?... It would be a good idea to speak for yourself and stop putting words in people's mouths...." etc, etc.) and anyone else you wish to discriminate against (having defined yourself as 'religious' and everyone else as 'other'). But any form of riposte to your incessant and unintelligent name calling either rattles your 'religious' sensibilities or falls within your own inaccurate and overblown definition of a rant, drawing further dull invective.

Well I have yet to read anything informed or edifying that you have written. You appear to express no cogent arguments and your presence on the forum appears to centre only on insulting others. Please feel free to ignore this post. This is the last time I respond to your turgid denunciations. I am used to debating social issues with open-minded people.

[Niamh Devlin]

Ah Mary ... are you really (to quote Mary Shelley up-thread) intent on "digging" an even bigger hole?

I do pity anyone who can't get to grips with the keyboard but .... who do you think you're kidding?
You just don't concentrate hard enough Mary. It's the Catholic persecution 'reflex'. It gets in the way.

What's with all the questions but no answers? What business is it of yours where (in Ireland) my grandmother lived? I posted a FACT. If you are implying - from your lofty English perspective - that she is a liar it says more about you than her.

I quoted that experience as relevant to the topic under discussion. You, on the other hand ... keep referring to your "Nan"!? Her "back" condition? Are you trying to prove something?

It's a bit like musical chairs with you Mary. All change depending on the 'tune' in your head. Too many big chips. You need to prioritise. What exactly are you complaining about?

What has 'Get a life' to do with satire? Maybe you are too old to understand the connotations.

I note you ignore my comments on ill-mannered, infantile put-downs of women?

Here are some of the questions asked of you and ignored:
a) Are you an academic?
b) Is Mary Shelley your real name?
c) What's the big 'chip' against intelligent women?
d) What's the big 'chip' about the North?
e) What gives you the right to personally abuse people you do not and cannot know?

No doubt all readers have their own opinions on the psychology manifesting in your posts but I think Hugh Manitas has hit the nail on the head:

"The whole process typifies someone who is terrified that others will ignore them or condemn them to perceived inferiority."

If that is the case, I too 'pity' them. Different nuance from 'sympathise'. No sympathy here.

NO. UCD did not miss out of the Reformation. What's the obsession with the Reformation?

Were I 'into' musical chairs, I could ask: What do you know of the Celtic Church? Indeed, what DO you know ... about anything apart from the imagined injustices to Catholicism?

Apart from some pseudo-academic utterances revealed in their shallowness by a 'pick and mix' approach to academic study, I am at a loss to know what you think you are arguing?.

No wonder Kate and Mr Schnittger decided they'd had enough. Even the indefatigable JPearce has disappeared.
You have confirmed all the points I set out to make. I really couldn't care less what you think about anything.

[Chris Gillibrand]

Bavaria and Austria are Catholic and, by modern standards, deeply Catholic and conservative. Not much evidence of poverty in either place.

[M]

"Many Catholics are even more concerned than I am at the possibility of the reintroduction of the prayer for the 'perfidious' Jews.

If it isn't going to happen, then the Pope should spell this out loud and clear."

How many times...

It is NOT in the Missal of John XXIII issued in 1962. It is NOT relevant.

[J Pearce]

"Ireland has abandoned her Catholic principles and traditions as a pay-back for the money she has received from the EU to give her some semblance of prosperity."

Let me get this straight, Geoff - you would rather live in a third world economy - with all its attendent social issues and privation - run by a Catholic religious autocracy, with absolutely no democratic rights whatsoever, where the majority of the populace is kept subjugated in a fuedalistic society?

If this is true - and it certainly appears to be, given the content of your last few troll-like outbursts - I have to ask, why do you even bother blogging?! Isn't the very concept of the blog - a meritocratic forum for competing viewpoints and discussion - utterly anathema to your belief system?! Aren't you being just a tad bit hypocritical by even entering into this discussion?!

[Niamh Devlin]

What a surprise Geoff!! You're still here. And, you've been busy on the Net finding out about the Dublin Hierarchy so you can 'drop' the odd name.

What happened to: "Like Mr Schnittger, I too am leaving for another forum, especially after the suppression of my response to Dr Lancaster and the publication of that one-sided piece of crusty old blarney from Mr Devlin."

What gibberish; what a drama queen! Whoops!

It's the little things that give you away Geoff. Mr Schnittger keeps his word. Geoff witters on - the masks donned only reveal his deficiencies.

Now, in further effort to deflect from the topic and keep centre stage, Geoff wants to know about Ireland, about Irish Catholic opinion?

No he does not. He is just on a futile search for further excuses to pester people. Not me Geoffrey. I have your full measure.

Your absurd attempts to bully carry no weight with my generation. Too many people here tolerate you because they are of the class (and age) that were taught not 'lower' themselves to such levels.

Your brand of Catholicism is dead. Europe has educated its youth. The smothering hand of clericalism has lost its power. Those who would emulate it are a joke. You, and your inane parochial opinions, on the Taoiseach, Irish youth, culture, education, prosperity or anything else are immaterial i.e. utterly irrelevant.

Keep posting Geoff. Keep exposing your intellectual deficits, you will not provoke another response from me. It is all too predictable and boring.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Mary Shelley: There are those who deliberately attempt to antagonize anyone who will listen to them in order to provoke a reaction".
- Hugh Manitas, 26 July 2007, 16:23:48

"Geoff the trollmeister to Ms Devlin:
'If you can bring yourself to exclude the rhetoric from your post...'
Laugh out loud Niamh!"
- Hugh Manitas, 26 July 2007, 16:41:57

You see what I mean, Mary, about a ranting troll? The more you feed it, the more you encourage it to insult you and your faith.
Please don't reply to Mr Manitas or to any other secular troll on this blog. I don't think it is worth the effort when the result is ever more abuse for yourself and insults for our Church and faith.

[Hugh Manitas]

Geoff the trollmeister to Ms Devlin:

"If you can bring yourself to exclude the rhetoric from your post..."

Laugh out loud Niamh!!

[Hugh Manitas]

Mary Shelley: There are those who deliberately attempt to antagonize anyone who will listen to them in order to provoke a reaction. This guarantees a response which may signal anger or irritability - but that doesn't matter. The whole process typifies someone who is terrified that others will ignore them or condemn them to perceived inferiority. If that is your position then you have my sympathy. What is unacceptable and demeaning is the hollow and unworthy sarcasm, directed at other contributors throughout your posts, apparently made under the transparent guise of informed argument.

I mentioned Dr Lancaster in my last post, not because I agree with all of her views, but because she consults widely in order to achieve a balance and does not speak wholly from an entrenched position. This allows respect for her academic stance and embraces a form of compromise which does not detract from her otherwise strongly held beliefs. This is not a form of high-flown praise as you suggested but a general point.

I have no connection with The Times Newspaper, and there is no validity in any of the other suggestions you cite as possible answers to your question.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"The irrelevant wittering of your latest beggars belief".
- Niamh Devlin, 26 July 2007, 11:59:48

Are you really a Catholic, Ms Devlin?
I mean, REALLY? It stretches my imagination to picture you at Mass. Or perhaps you don't go that often now?
I quote: "The truth is that most Catholics go to church because that's what they were born into. It's a ritual".
Do you include yourself in that category, Ms Devlin? Or are we holier than most of our fellow Irish?
I quote: "very few Catholics know much about the Bible" - op.cit.
And you, with your UCD education, are much
more knowledgeable than, say, Archbishop Brady, right?
I quote: "we do not welcome the return of the Latin Mass" - op.cit.
You've been round the country counting heads, have you? Well, in that case, you should know. Otherwise, it would be a good idea to speak for yourself and stop putting words into people's mouths.
I appreciate that you may have great difficulty in learning and mastering a "foreign" language like Latin, but it is hardly elitist to favour one of the greatest influences ever on Irish culture.
If you can bring yourself to exclude the rhetoric from your post, would you be kind enough to answer the charge I made in my previous post: Ireland has abandoned her Catholic principles and traditions as a pay-back for the money she has received from the EU to give her some semblance of prosperity.

[Niamh Devlin]

Hey Geoff you couldn't resist it. Couldn't resist, like Mary Shelley, coming back to further exhibit your own ignorance, racism and religious bigotry. What about the pompous farewell then?

What a "hilarious" record of empty vanity! Mary is quite right in relation to your good selves - you and she are "getting (unintentionally) hilarious".

Geoffrey Smith: Infamous for malice and venom; grandiose declarations when the moderator refuses to print it; attempts to bully the moderator; temporary disappearance from the blog.

Then you sneak back in. As a reader, I've lost count. Didn't take too long this time though. I think you've broken your own record. And for what reason? The irrelevant wittering of your latest beggars belief.