Ronald Knox once quipped that a typical headline in the Catholic papers was "Nun stung by bee on way to Benediction". I remember once at Oxford when this quote was doing the rounds, that a Catholic paper had the headline "Vicar sends Pope a pair of socks." Therefore it is perhaps in the genre for the front page to include "Pope give £85,000 truffle to homeless" (to avoid any silly outrage on this matter, let me hasten to add that the truffle in question had been donated to the Pope by an Italian businessman who paid 100,000 euro for it at a charity auction.)
Of course there is "other news" this week and the paper covers the Bishops' Conference, focussing particularly on the setting up of the Ordinariate, it has two good articles on the consistory, and covers the illicit episcopal ordination of Fr Joseph Guo Jincai in China.
The feature articles complement this week's issue with a piece on Dorothy Day and a fascinating article by Sister Janet Fearns with testimonies from the five seminarians at the Phnom Penh seminary in Cambodia. Verbum Domini has not been forgotten: Fr Adrian Graffy has a piece in the prime slot on the Comment page. Opposite that, the letters page this week is particularly good: opening slot is given to the great Fr Hunwicke who gives a fascinating account of the background to Graham Leonard's conditional ordination and the Anglo-Catholic reaction to Apostolicae Curae.
The Catholic Life section is sometimes referred to whimsically as the herald's "Hello" page but I think it has served a good purpose in highlighting local events without becoming ludicrously parochial. For example this week as well as the Passage "Night Under the Stars" concert with various celebrities pictured, there is a photo of the Pilgrimage from Ryde to Quarr and a spendid photo of pupils from the Oratory School on the occasion of their annual Requiem.
The Reviews in the Herald are always of good quality. Although some of them on music and theatre go above my head, when I do know a little about the subject, I normally find them well informed. For instance this week there is an intelligent review by John Jolliffe of Laszlo Dobszay's The Restoration and Organic Development of the Roman Rite. That is a fascinating book, by the way: a real contribution to the debate on the Liturgy.
When reading the Herald, I always look forward to some light-hearted banter from Stuart Reid on the back page. If someone else is doing the column I am a little disappointed. However Robin Baird-Smith's piece this week, "Running from silence" is very good indeed, combining personal experience and humour while making a serious point about the abhorrence of silence in today's society.
Quite a bit of the paper's content can be read at the Catholic Herald website and you can get some good snippets as things are being prepared on the @catholicherald Twitter feed, but editor, Luke Coppen, reminds us regularly on Twitter that you need to get the paper to read it all. My own business model would be to put the whole lot on the internet and take a bit more advertising online to boost both revenue and circulation; but then I am a priest and not a businessman.
Someone may of course say "You reptile - you are puffing the Catholic Herald because you write for it and you have a financial interest!" Well it is true that I write a small column (350 words) called "Catholic Dilemmas" but, frankly, it is not a massively significant part of the paper and whether it is accepted or not, my motive in writing in this way on the blog is simply to give credit where credit is due. Bloggers (myself included) are quick to lay into the "dead tree media" so I think that something as good as this week's Herald deserves recognition. We often feel compelled to say negative things on blogs and it is nice to be able to write something positive.
(By the way, the image above is not this week but an old image. I found it on google and thought it was fun.)
19 comments:
Thus far the words of the holy advert.
Sorry, Father, in a week where I talked someone out of joining the Pius X Society I am not enamoured by the Catholic Herald. But as the Catholic Herald sayd I am one of the ones `disappointed by what the Pope said`. Well, no, I am disappointed in the Catholic Herald. It has from last weekend in its blog consistantly with Damain Thompson supported those who claimed that the Pope had allowed condoms in certain circumstances. Of course we are told this still means the teaching is intact. Exceptions are not allowed by the Church since they lead to others and Damian Thompson set the ball rolling by asking if this exception of prostitutes does not also apply to married couples, one with HIV. There are serious things goin on, Father, so please excuse me if I do not leap out of my chair cheering your article.
Father,you are much too kind in not mentioning the so predictable front pages of the other two, The Universe and the Catholic Times. After the past week's media frenzy re Light of the World, these two papers also rush to grasp the wrong end of the stick, giving headlines that will give Catholic church porches across the country the atmosphere of a brothel.
Are we not meant to be now more aware than ever of childhood innocence? Why should children be confronted with these headlines in a Church of all places? Is there not a parish priest out there anywhere with the courage to bin this week's issue of these two papers? One understands the Bishops have a say in the running of these two papers; are they not ashamed of actively corrupting childrens' minds in the churches under their care...?
Father, they used to say of The Universe - Catholic dog bites Catholic man on Catholic street!
Nowadays it still holds true if you knock out the word 'Catholic'
I may be reading it wrong but the Herald seems to be saying that the Pope does indeed think that using a condom is a first step in responsibility, thereby accepting the idea that in some circumstances (such as preventing infection) it can be OK. This is not how I, Dr Janet Smith, Fr Allessio or Cardinal Burke are reading the Pope’s comments, and think that on this occasion the Herald has got it wrong. As for Fr Lombardi’s clarification, I’m afraid I have little faith in his handling of ‘clarifications’ which seem to me to simply stir up muddy waters rather than clear them.
On another note, the whole of the Herald is indeed available on the internet or at least can be purchased as an email through ‘exact editions’. I receive mine from them every week.
I'm still stunned at this:
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2010/11/23/condoms-may-be-first-step-in-moralisation-of-sexuality-says-pope/
The revisionism and distortion is redolent of the Sun or the Tablet - but for the Herald to allow this to be published online?
I'm sick to the stomach !
Opps! That should read 'Fr Fessio'. Apologies for having my mind on different things.
colmcille2 - in fact a priest emailed me this morning precisely to say that he had done what you said. I'm still undecided about what to do. Perhaps put a notice up to say that the papers are available for adults under the counter in the repository.
(Good Lord what have we come to?!)
OTSOTA - the headline in the print edition is "Benedict XVI recasts the debate on condoms".
@fr finigan A thousand thanks. My head is in danger of exploding. Ah the heady thrill of praise
Fr Gary: we quoted Janet Smith at length and tried to be accurate in our reporting. We did also quote Fr Fessio originally but ran out of space.
Paul:I'm sorry you saw it as a distortion. As far as I understand the Holy Father's comment, he is not saying condoms are ok. He seems merely to be making the point that if you are in a situation where you are regularly engaged in risky sexual behaviour the use of a condom might indicate a moment of moral awakening. One needs to distinguish between a first
step towards something moral (a step which is still not actually
morally acceptable), and something that is itself morally acceptable? To say the Pope has said condoms are ok is for example just like being unable to distinguish the first step of my
journey to Oxford from actually being in Oxford, and concluding from
someone saying that I may have taken the first step towards Oxford
that I'm already there. I do however think His Holiness has changed the conversation. I'm sorry if we failed to convey that delicate distinction in our article. We try to be accurate.
PS Apologies for spelling mistakes etc. I'm writing from my phone.
PPS Am writing this comment in a personal capacity.
I have no desire to engage in detraction, but at what point do we look at the people who are feeding us dishonest accounts of the Pope's views on sex and demand that they declare their interest? It is infuriating that the faithful are being led astray by bloggers who, while expressing great concern over matters liturgical, are utterly compromised when it comes to other areas.
For Taliban Catholics the painful reality is that the Pope HAS caved in to media led pressure. But for liberal Catholics the strategy for the future reform of the Church is now clear!
_ (please can you invent a name or something) I'm not quite sure what/who you are getting at. Although everyone says that it is perfectly clear what the Pope said or meant, the number of different versions rather indicates to me that it is not at all clear. But yes, there is a bit of what Damian called "cognitive dissonance" among those of us who welcomed the Pope's programme for liturgical reform. I have resolved it by disagreeing frankly with him.
PiusXXX - well yes - enjoy it while it lasts.
No doubt parish priests in Rome will also be binning their copies of L'Osservatore Romano for daring to use the word 'condom' as well then?
Why pick on the Catholic media in the UK for covering a hugely important story which the Holy Father himself addressed in a book which he agreed to and which he signed off? Maybe, colmcille2, the 'other two' Catholic papers' front pages were 'so predictable' exactly because it was the most important aspect the Pope's thought to come out of the Light of the World? Pretending that condoms do not exist incidentally is frankly immature. Do you seriously expect the Catholic press not to cover such stories? If that is the case, then you should start your attack at the door of Pope Benedict, the Vatican and L'Osservatore Romano as this is where the issue was raised for discussion in the first place.
The issue is not the discussion of moral issues,but the portrayal of intimate sexual matters on the FRONT pages of papers that are on display for children of all ages to see in their church.Yes, the world is saturated in sexual imagery of the most debased and vulgar nature, from hoardings to shop shelves and it may be naive to think that innocence can still exist, but this does not entitle the Catholic Church through newspapers to join in this all out assault on the senses,particularly in sacred space."..he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in Me, it were better for him that a millstone be hanged about his neck and that he be drowned in the sea"
There has been a debate going on in some circles as to whether the Holy Father should have given that interview (six hours over as many days, actually) to Peter Seewald, which resulted in the book “Light of the World”. To some it was demeaning or not ‘appropriate’ for a Pope. To others it was dangerous. Unlike his books which were written over time, with much reflection and revision, this was off-the-cuff responses on a myriad of topics and a potential minefield. Proof of this is adduced by the ‘condom controversy’. So there is the fear that this kind of thing diminishes the Holy Father and serves to ‘de-mythologize’ the Papacy.
I don’t share those views nor am I concerned about the potential pitfalls. While some might long for an earlier time and the reign of a Pius XII – seen as remote and ascetic with an aura of mystery – I for one welcome the openness and yes, risk-taking, of Pope Benedict.
As Peter Seewald himself acknowledges, the view many people have - even today - of Pope Benedict is a mistaken one. As Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith he was seen as the strict enforcer, stern and aloof, pronouncing from on high with little contact or experience of ordinary people. Epithets such as ‘PanzerKardinal’ and ‘God’s Rottweiler’ were tossed about with abandon by people who had no personal experience of then Cardinal Ratzinger. Admittedly, I too, bought into that image of him, though my hesitation also went back to an earlier time and the years of Vatican II.
Cont'd...
Cont'd...
In contrast, those who knew him personally always described him in terms of humility, gentleness, kindness and courtesy. Upon his election I set about reading everything I could find that he had written or was written about him. One of the first of these was the 1996 interview he had given to Peter Seewald which resulted in the book “Salt of the Earth”. That book changed my mind about the man and whetted my appetite for more of his work.
I look for similar reactions from people when and if they read “Light of the World”. I haven’t received my copy as yet but if past experience and the excerpts I have read are any indication, I expect it to be a revelation for us all – and a good revelation at that.
In agreeing to the interview I believe the Holy Father’s approach follows that of Him whose Vicar he is. Our Lord scandalized many people of his day by some of the things He did: eating with publicans and sinners, flouting the letter of the Law, engaging with women of dubious virtue and even, horrors, a Samaritan woman! Then the ultimate scandal – death on a cross as a common criminal.
If the servant is not greater than the master, then the Holy Father is showing himself to be a very worthy servant and I’ve no doubt the Master is pleased.
@PIUSXXX
As a 'Taliban Catholic' and a fully paid up member of the philosophical realist 'jihad', I don't agree with you, but of course I won't be hunting you down either. Things in the Taliban camp aren't what they used to be!
Am I alone in thinking that 'Taliban Catholics' are a gentle sort, under the skin, much put upon by the liberal 'Spirit of Vatican II' and its appalling effects?
To be more serious: it's about more than liturgy. It's also to do with confusion and revisionism (e.g. the proportionalist ethic) in moral theology.
I don't share your interpretation of the Holy Father's words. I agree with Fr Fessio and Janet Smith, and a number of others who take seriously the clarification which the Pope himself made after his possibly misinterpreted words 'There may be a basis in individual cases...where this is a first step towards moralisation'. The Pope did not say in that sentence in what respect it (use?) might be such a step. In the later passage, which is intended to clarify his meaning, he clearly stated that he could see a step (note the repetition of the word) 'in der Absicht' (IN THE INTENTION). This could be saying that the intention is a move in the right direction, even if the act is not.
Maybe we just have to wait until the Pope clarifies it (again?).
Post a Comment