Catholic women rising

Okay, so this is a bit of an experiment, but I’d really like it to catch on and would also like the support of the entire Catholic blogosphere, certainly in the UK and what an amazing thing if this could go global.

Inspired by Deacon Nick Donnelly, who has such an inspirational apostolate with his Protect the Pope blog, my blood pressure rose when I saw that a certain ‘Catholic’ theologian is once again hinting at doctrinal changes, seemingly misunderstanding that these are simply not possible. This isn’t meant to be a personal attack on Tina Beattie herself, I can understand that it must be unnerving to feel constantly besieged by a group of bloggers on the internet, but in a recent interview in the Guardian she states:

The new pope must show that he is willing to engage seriously with women’s theological voices and moral perspectives in a way which is broadly representative of the diverse experiences and aspirations of women, and not just with a few carefully selected theological handmaids.

The Church is not a democracy. Furthermore doctrines cannot change, Catholicism is based upon the truth that was revealed to us by Jesus Christ and handed down by the apostles to their successors. Revealed truth cannot change, the deposit of faith is comprised of this revealed truth expressed in Scripture and sacred tradition and thus cannot change. The church does not have the power to change or remove anything that has been given to us by Christ and His Apostles.

It is beyond annoying being told what the Church should do in relation to women, by people who are either not Catholic, or want the Church to change her doctrine in order to accommodate their own personal agendas, whether that be to allow self-destructive behaviour, to validate their own insecurity or to give them more ‘power’, which is never a healthy thing. None of us should crave positions of power or leadership.

Many faithful Catholic women are fed up of being told that they are not representative of the Catholic faith, that they are somehow brainwashed or marginalised, that their Church hates them and that most Catholic women are against the Church’s teachings, especially with regards to contraception, abortion and the male priesthood, most of which is based on dodgy poll data.

Here’s what I’d like to do. I’m not sure if this blog is the best forum for it, but then again it is run by a married mother of 4 young girls, who is passionate about female equality and empowerment, it’s just my definition of what that looks like, is very different to that of militant feminists or unrepresentative politicians and journalists, who think working women is all about a high-powered job in a nice city office somewhere on mega-bucks, or perhaps a well-paid newspaper column working from home, whereas the reality for most working mothers and children is entirely different.

I’d like to get as many Catholic women as possible, to sign up in the comments box below, to say that they agree with the following statement.

I am a faithful practicing Roman Catholic woman, who attends Mass at least once a week and who believes in and practices the Church’s teachings, specifically pertaining to matters on sexuality, contraception, abortion, marriage and the ordination of women. I believe that the Roman Catholic Church is sympathetic to and representative of the needs and concerns of women and their children, wherever they may be in the world. I would like to offer our new Pope Francis, my prayers and support and thank him for his continued protection and support of mothers and their unborn children. I fully endorse Church doctrine in relation to women’s issues.

This could be an amazing gift for the Year of Faith. Imagine if every single faithful Catholic woman were to pledge their solidarity to our new Pope and Church doctrine in one place. What a gift, blessing and comfort, not only for Pope Francis, but also for ALL the Catholic clergy, Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops, Monsignors, Priests, Deacons, as well as those members of the laity, who are engaged in catechesis. How heartening for them to see the fruits of their work and how loved, supported and appreciated they are by Catholic women everywhere.

Also, what an opportunity for catechesis this could be, in terms of promoting the New Feminism. If you do see this and you are a Catholic women who feels in good conscience that she cannot sign up, don’t leave a comment on this post, I’ll open up another sticky and we can get debate going there, or better still, discuss it with your priest, or someone you know who can sign in good faith.

What a message to the Pope, to the Church and to the world and media at large. We, the undersigned Catholic women, have a love for Christ and his Church burning in our hearts and we do not wish to alter or change doctrine one little bit. We are empowered by a beautiful teaching that recognises us as having an equal dignity and sets us free to live in love.

Francis Fever

It could be my misanthropic side or maybe I’ve just got a very short attention span or perhaps a combination of the two, means that I’m hoping that Francis fever will shortly subside, once the inauguration Mass has taken place.

That’s not to in any way question our new Holy Father, or throw any of his qualities into doubt, far from it, the Conclave played a blinder with that googlie (indulge me a little Bernard moment to mix my sporting metaphors here) but the constant focus upon Pope Francis, the style of his papacy and his personal gracious humility and simplicity, could I think, become counterproductive.

It’s marvellous that here we have a new Pope who has really got the media buzzing, proving that Catholicism is not as irrelevant as they would have us believe and that coverage has been incredibly positive, aside from one poorly researched attempted hatchet job from the usual suspect, the Guardian, but human nature loves nothing better than to build people up, if only to knock them down again, ably aided and abetted by the media.

My concern is that this important theme of poverty could swiftly start to become jaded and has the capacity to be caricatured and used as a weapon against the Holy Father, when and if, he does something wholly in keeping with his vocation, by a media who may not fully understand the implications of the office and responsibilities of the Vicar of Christ. Such as, for example, when he travels. Fr Ray Blake highlights an essential point, namely in order to be loyal sons and daughters of the Church we really need to get to grips with and actually understand what is meant by poverty. Anyone who thinks that the Vatican museums or Roman churches can or should be sold off to the highest bidder needs a reality check.

I cannot help but think that the very last thing Pope Francis wants is to be revered as some sort of living saint for the fact that he lives out the values of the Gospel and of his religious order. Whilst it’s entirely laudable that he does so, he is not the only priest or bishop to follow in the footsteps of Christ in this way. I know at least one UK diocesan bishop who drives about in an average non descript car, has very little in the way of personal staff and goes about with absolutely no pomp and ceremony whatsoever. A parish volunteer once related to me about how they once told a man that he couldn’t use a particular space in the church car park, because it was reserved for the bishop who was coming to do confirmations, whereupon the response was a fairly nonplussed, ‘I am actually the bishop’ much to the poor man’s mortification! He had been expecting a grand personage in a smart vehicle, not a low-key looking priest.

Pope Francis may well be on his way to sainthood, as are hopefully all of us, but he is not there yet and the very reason that he took us all by surprise is precisely because he had kept an extraordinarily low profile in the run-up to the conclave, he doesn’t do self-promotion and thus had fallen off everybody’s radar, including the most seasoned vaticanisti. This self-effacing man, whilst indicating that his papacy will be very different in style, does not want to be admired, far from it, but to lead us to Christ. The theme could wear thin very quickly not to mention backfire, if it is over-egged or swift conclusions drawn and I can’t help but wonder how soon we may see the satirists draw unkind Uriah Heep portraits. My mind drifted back to how Fluck and Law of Spitting Image portrayed Pope John Paull II, with a shudder.

Pope Benedict XVI was the one who laid the groundwork in terms of demystifying the papacy, not least by resigning it. His several books that were written in his own name, alongside his prolonged interview with Peter Seewald in Light of the World, in which he let people into his own personal reflections, showed, that in his words upon his election in 2005, that he was ‘a simple worker in the vinyard of the Lord’. Pope Francis seems to have the ability to breathe new life into the Church, he seems to be the right man at the right moment, he could do for the Papacy what Princess Diana did for the Royals, not forgetting that Diana’s charism with the poor and the sick was, however inadvertently, following in Christ’s footsteps, Francis is clearly able to speak from the heart, off the cuff, to rip up formal protocols and win hearts and minds for Christ, but he may not have been able to do so, if Benedict had not already shown the way. Pope Francis is very much what the church is aching for, but the likes of Cardinal Mahoney ought to remember that it was thanks to the Emeritus Pope, that this has been made possible. If we are to remember that the papacy is not a personality cult, then we also need to remember to keep some of our admiration and respect in proportion, before going overboard about a people’s pope. I think Pope Francis will do great things for us, but only if we give him the space, instead of projecting our own interpretation onto him.

As for the matters liturgical, I hate to rain on Rorate Caeli’s parade, but it seems to me, they are forgetting one vitally important point here, in that like everybody else, the Pope is a servant of the liturgy. I know liturgy matters, I’m not a traditionalist, but equally I appreciate the importance of the liturgy in orientating us towards Christ and subjugating our will to His. Liturgy is not about how we “feel” and what gives us the warm and fuzzies, but worshiping God as he has instructed us to do so , in a way that is noble, reverent, respectful, transcendent and mysterious. I guess I’m torn on this, because whilst appreciating the desire for a simpler style, there is a part of me that thinks, look, the Vatican has all these wonderful vestments in its various wardrobes, they aren’t going to sell them, go on, they might as well use the sparkly threads every once in a while. The whole thing is very hard to get right. One doesn’t want vestments that are just so ornate and dazzlingly beautiful that they detract from what’s going on in the Mass, equally we don’t want vomit inducing ’70s lairy florescent vulgar murals, neither does one want a priest that appears almost liturgically naked, his very simplicity being a statement and thus a distraction. The mystery and nobility needs to be retained, but I’m absolutely no expert, I’ve no idea how. It would clearly be a shame if Benedict’s reforms went by the wayside, his papacy was about making sure that the entire Church faced in the same direction, towards God (one of the reasons I’m all in favour of ad orientem) and Pope Francis will continue what Benedict did for the liturgy, in terms of prayer and action.

On the subject on nobility, though it’s as the result of a happy accident, I think we also do need to remember that the Pope is also the Head of State (albeit small), a role which enables the Holy See to achieve a vast amount in terms of international relations and behind-the-scenes negotiations and peace agreements so it is only right and proper that a certain respect is accorded to him in this office. Back to the unprepossessing bishops that I can think of, I think we need to remember that even though one may live simply and reflect this in dress or manner of transport, the dignity of office, the fact that a bishop, cardinal or Pope is one of Peter’s apostles, should never ever be forgotten. I know Anglicans who have often been flummoxed by this, forgetting that an appearance can often belie the office. One of the interesting contrasts I find between the Anglican and Catholic bishops I know, is that the Anglicans are all about the ecclesial purple and pectoral crosses and piping, the Catholic Bishops tend to be a lot more discreet in their dress, often leading to others perhaps treating them with inappropriate informality and yet Catholic bishops hold infinitely more power over their diocese than their Anglican counterparts. The commentators on Rorate Caeli need to remember exactly who they are talking about and the allegiance which is owed to him, Pope Francis has the keys of St Peter, the power to bind and lose.

None of this is to diss our new pontiff, but more to add a note of caution. Yes, we should be delighted that so far, the signs are looking promising, but Joseph Shaw has wise words on Papolatry and prudence. I can see attacks on the Church, on our new Holy Father really intensifying in the near future, from all quarters, including from within, as we have already seen. Whilst I take CS Lewis’ guidance to heart about the equal and opposite errors with regards to thinking about the devil, it seems to me that the reaction, the anger, whether that be from Rorate Caeli, the liberal press or hostile Anglicans, seems to flow from one cause. We have a great new Pope, who promises so much in terms of the New Evangelisation and the reinvigoration of the church. One who is going to re-sanctify the church and bring Christ to the world, especially the poor, sick, the needy, the elderly and the unborn in the twenty-first century. Not only that, technically we have TWO Popes, no matter how bizarre that seems. Not one pope, but two. One who will be actively leading us in prayer and holiness and another former pope, who will be storming the heavens on behalf of the church, with a life of prayer and penance. Think about that for a moment. I said in a previous post that we had two-for the-price of one in Pope Francis, with the merger of the Jesuit and Franciscan. Actually we have that in an actual physical sense, two popes together working for the church although in very different ways. One public and one private. They are even meeting privately next week, in order that Benedict may pass on some of his wisdom and experience to help Pope Francis in some of the difficult decisions. This is unprecedented stuff.

The power of two extraordinarily holy, deeply spiritual and wise men, leading the faithful in prayer. It can be no surprise that someone is angry, someone is furious, whenever great good happens, retaliation always occurs. Someone else has got Francis fever, which is why we need to all be on guard.

*************************************************************************************************************************************************************

(Oh and as aside, to the critics who are claiming that the Church’s teaching on sexuality and priestly celibacy is misguided because it’s difficult but who are lauding the Pope’s zeal for the poor. The response to which is doing what is right, is not always the same as what is easy. I wonder what they would make of being informed that technically they should be giving at least 10% of their income away to charity. That’s not easy either, especially in these troubled times, but does that mean that it’s equally quite so misguided and wrong? If chastity and celibacy are wrong because they are allegedly difficult and challenging then why doesn’t giving a significant proportion of your income away, fall into the same category?)

The media and a cheeky little grumble

Regular readers will have noticed that I haven’t been posting over the past few weeks, even though there has been no shortage of material. The main reason for this has been the time that I spend writing (usually evenings) has been taken up with vast amounts of reading around the conclave process, its history and the background of the various papabili in preparation for any media appearances which may crop up. Catholic Voices has really come into its own during these momentous weeks, many of the speakers have done a tremendous job in terms of informing the media and general public and one thing that I have noticed from my contributions, is that the attitude of the media certainly seems to have softened and become a lot less hostile and more open to a reasoned Catholic viewpoint, although there are occasions when one finds oneself addressing the same old canards again and again.

Whilst there will always be the same detractors, the one thing that should be borne in mind, is that despite the excellent and rigorous training and preparation for what it is like to be in the hot seat, there is no substitute for experience. The more media appearances you do, the more confident, relaxed and skilled you become at the whole process, so those who vociferously complain in the various coms boxes really need to bear this in mind before they let rip. I can certainly see an improvement and marked contrasts between my recent interviews and those of a year ago. It isn’t always easy being subject to scrupulous, superficial and often ignorant scrutiny when one has a microphone or camera trained on you. In most of these situations, nuance or an in-depth detailed theological discussion is impossible. Very often, such recently on the Big Questions, it’s superficial scattergun apologetics, bouncing from one neuralgic issue to the next, to the next, with no time for considered thoughtful answers. The opening shot of an interview I did yesterday was “well you obviously follow Catholic teaching on contraception then, you’ve got 4 children”. It then went down the usual rabbit holes and on reflection, I can see how at times I missed my chance to refocus the interview on the Pope, but it’s pretty difficult to concentrate when one is being poked in the eye with a sharp stick. But on another occasion, God Willing, I’ll be able to handle that better, having learnt.

I did an interview the other morning for Radio Merseyside, having woken up for the early morning interview chock full of cold and lurgy. It proved our saying, you are never as good or as bad as you think you are (I thought it was absolutely terrible), but judging by the stat counter on my blog, I’d obviously confused the listener by using the word pallium, without explaining what this was. Several people arrived here having asked google about “Caroline Farrow’s pallium”. I then received some friendly advice about not using specific liturgical terminology. ‘The problem is’, they explained, ‘that nobody knows what a pallium is. They probably spent the rest of the interview highly distracted wondering what a pallium was, how big is it, did he mean to leave it there and did he ever get it back. What happened to it? Is it like something out of Dr Who’. Which is fair comment and goes to show that for certain audiences, detailed complex theological or philosophical concepts are going to go way over people’s heads and prove counterproductive. But by the time I’d done 11 back-to-back interviews for local radio the other Sunday, I think I’d pretty much got the issues down pat and nailed, the only difficulty being attempting to make the same sentiments sound fresh after 2 and a half hours of non stop opining. As long as one can relax and enjoy the interview and realise that the presenter actually wants to find you winsome, a bit of jocularity goes down a lot better than jargon-heavy hectoring and might actually motivate people to find out more.

We’re in the realms of cloud cluckoo land if we think a short slot on local radio should aim to deliver the thunderbolt that sends the listeners rushing to their nearest confessional, certainly the common theme in both my journey of faith and those that Catholic converts have shared with me is not necessarily one incident but whole series of interlocking events that looked at as a whole, formed a path leading to the truth. A compelling media appearance can certainly play a part in that, but a 3 minute slot is not going to have the same effect as an hour’s talk or presentation by a great Christian or Catholic apologist.

The last few weeks have been something of a roller-coaster for us all. We’ve barely had time to come to terms with the resignation surrounding our beloved Pope Benedict, before getting into the swing of the conclave and the speculation surrounding his successor. On a personal note, like many of my colleagues, I’ve been rushed off my feet preparing for interviews, which not only takes it toll in terms of time but also emotional energy as well as, for someone like me, logistics. It’s not especially easy to arrange childcare at short notice when one’s husband is miles away at seminary and family needs to come first. I was really disappointed to have to turn down Sky News on the day of Benedict’s final general audience, but Robin had his official formal interview and feedback for the diaconate, which was infinitely more important. And let’s face it, doing the big media stuff is always fun and challenging, even if nerve-wracking, although one really needs to be on guard for spiritual vanity, which is one of the consequences of this kind of work and a trap which I really do have to work very hard not to fall into. If readers could continue to pray not only for me, but for all of us who try to speak for our faith in whatever medium, it would be hugely appreciated. We always make sure that we have a prayer chain of folk praying for us before we go on air and in the final moments before the camera switches on, I always clear my mind and pray.

But now onto the grumble and observation. Last week, I had word that the BBC were looking to fly me out to Rome to be a part of their coverage for the conclave. To say that I was beyond excited is something of an understatement. Robin and I agreed that if it were possible, given that this was a once in a lifetime opportunity, that we should do whatever we could to make it happen, hence I had a week of rushing about like a headless chicken, and a precise timetable of chores, involving making sure that two of the children could stay with their grandparents, clothes were meticulously laundered into handy piles, favourite cuddlies and books stockpiled and packed, along with bibs, beakers and all the various paraphanalia to ensure that life was as easy as possible both for them and my parents at the other end. A rota of other parents were enlisted to pick up the eldest from school and various favours called in, whilst in the middle of the week I made an eight hour journey to Peterborough and back to procure a passport to enable me to take the baby, as well as beginning to acclimatise her to taking a bottle of formula milk, in case the passport did not arrive in time and/or to make life easier whilst out there.

In between all the dashing about, I waited and there was nothing. No confirmation of what was happening or response to an email asking whether the trip was still on. As is their prerogative and their right, the BBC decided to change their line-up and were too preoccupied to respond. That’s fair enough really, it’s entirely up to them who they wished to cover the event and my childcare and personal arrangements are irrelevant and none of their concern. This kind of thing happens all the time – we need to be ego free, prepared to be dropped at a moment’s notice, but it was more than a little frustrating having to put in place a complicated contingency plan should I suddenly be asked to get on a flight at moment’s notice. Of course I could always have said no from the outset, but the BBC had asked specifically for a woman and the other candidates were already indisposed. Naturally I wanted to go, if at all possible. But it wasn’t to be.

Then to add salt into my wounds, the phone rang on Wednesday night, between the appearance of the white smoke and Pope Francis on the balcony, asking whether or not I would be able to appear on Newsnight. Robin said fine, he’d put the kids to bed and I ran to jump in the shower, with BBC News playing on full volume on the radio. Having made myself look vaguely presentable, I then sat there for a few hours, having spoken to the producer of the show, trying to stop the children from smearing sticky fingers and spilling milk all over my only clean suit, waiting for him to phone back and confirm that a car was on its way, having pressed on him that one needed to come quickly if it was going to get me from Brighton to London in time. All the while trying to compose myself as well as some cogent thoughts about our new pontiff. At 9pm, an hour before I was supposed to be at the studio, no car had come, so I rang the show, only to discover that they had decided to drop me in favour of two priests and had forgotten to ring me back and tell me.

So all dressed up, tons of adrenlin and nowhere to go. Which happens, it’s incredibly frustrating, part and parcel of life and every single Catholic Voice will have a similar story about being dropped at the last minute, it’s not the first time it has happened, it won’t be the last and is all part of being ego free, but nonetheless I was feeling a little antsy and fed up yesterday, having invested a great deal of time and emotional energy. It is disappointing when that happens, especially when one has built oneself up. So another thing to remember next time one sees anyone on television or on radio. We’re all members of the laity, we’re not full-time professional media commentators, we’ve all got lives and families of our own and we do this work gladly out of love for the church and though we undoubtedly enjoy what we do and strive to do well, it does entail sacrifice, and this week was something of a double-whammy in terms of building up expectation and adrenalin, only to come crashing back down again. I obviously need to take a leaf out of our new pontiff’s book in terms of humility.

So moaning aside, and yes this is admittedly a minor personal grumble although I am sufficiently recovered and able to take disappointment in my stride, what I find most interesting about this, is that the BBC, who are usually preoccupied with diversity and representation and who repeatedly question the Catholic Church in terms of whether or not it represents women, have on two occasions in its recent coverage, ignored the opportunity to represent the viewpoint of an ordinary faithful Catholic woman in the church, in favour of men. I’m loath to draw any conclusions about political agendas, sometimes these things just happen without reason, but I can’t help but wonder whether or not a dissenting or ‘liberal’ Catholic woman would have made a more compelling narrative? I think it’s why they were keen to interview me over the celibacy controversy and found that they didn’t quite get what they were bargaining for.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Catholic TV station EWTN had Colleen Campbell doing an excellent job covering events. Whereas the UK media’s coverage was predominantly male-dominated. In some ways that doesn’t bother me, I’m not one for shortlists, it should be whoever is best able to do the job, regardless of gender and certainly in the case of Newsnight, Fr Alexander Lucie-Smith was his usual erudite and charming self. But next time the BBC wishes to berate the Catholic Church over its representation and treatment of women, it perhaps ought to look at the predominant gender of who it chose to represent the faithful in their coverage of the past few weeks.

Still it’s all part of life’s rich tapestry and an additional Lenten penance. I’m now due for a bit of a rest, unless anyone fancies subbing me a quick flight out in time for the inaugural Mass…

A Tale of Two Francis

Here is the full unedited version of a piece I wrote for Mercatornet on our new Holy Father.

The world’s Catholics are reeling with the shock election of the Argentinian Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio as the new successor to Peter, even the most seasoned Vaticanistas were not predicting that the runner-up to Ratzinger in the 2005 Conclave was a serious contender, his age and his Jesuit background both seemed to count against him.

Surprise swiftly melted into joy, excitement, anticipation and gratitude upon confirmation that age is clearly no barrier to innovation for the former Cardinal, as signified by his choice of name – the first Pope Francis in almost 2,000 years of Church history.

The name Francis is an indicator as to the future direction of a papacy which will have the themes of simplicity, humility, discipline, reform, rebirth and outreach at its heart. Not only do we have the first ever Pope from Latin America, but in Pope Francis we have something of a two-for-the-price of one, with a fusion of two major religious orders, whose founders both heralded a period of Church renewal and reform. Bergoglio could well prove to be a man for all seasons, combining the spiritual discipline of St Ignatius of Loyola with the humility and simplicity of St Francis of Assisi.

One of the defining qualities of the Jesuit order is that they don’t mess around and always mean business – something that could prove very useful for a Pope for whom reform of the Curia, the Vatican’s bureaucratic arm, is high on the agenda. The recent Vatileaks brouhaha was a symptom of the internecine factionalism that currently besets and hinders this small, but essential part of the Church from running in as efficient a manner as possible. A Pope who could be both governor and enforcer was one of the prerequisite criteria and a key theme emerging from the General Congregations, the meetings that preceded the Conclave. A religious order with a reputation for getting down to business , sorting wheat from the chaff seems to be exactly what the doctor ordered, and those who might doubt whether or not he possess the passion to bang heads together, ought to remember his scorching attack on clericalism, just six months ago in September 2012, when he denounced priests who refused to baptise the babies born outside marriage, as being guilty of “rigorous and hypocritical clericalism”. Pope Francis has no time for what he deems “the spiritual sickness of a self-referential church”.

All of which augurs well, as does his track record of swiftly appointing loyal bishops to troubled dioceses – the Catholic church is not a top-down organisation and depends upon good local governance. Rapid deployment of strong faithful intelligent bishops is key to rooting out decay and planting the seeds of the future.

John Allen, the veteran Vatican observer, has wondered whether or not Bergoglio’s lack of solid experience inside the Vatican itself would prove an obstacle, but an outsider with an Ignatian passion for rigorous discipline and an agenda for change, wholly untainted by insider corruption or personal interests, is ideally placed to implement the much needed root and branch reform. Pope Francis has previous form when it comes to taking action. He rose to prominence following his appointment as the provincial of the Jesuit order in Argentina in 1973, and unlike other Church leaders refused to back the country’s military dictatorship. He held firm against the rising tide of liberation theology sweeping Latin America, discouraging priests from political activism and insisted that Jesuits continued to staff the parishes and chaplaincies where they were needed instead of forming communities. Bergoglio’s insistence on obedience and stamping out of heterodoxy and dissent won him some local enemies, but indicates a desire to get things done, and is a trait that will stand him in good stead when it comes to continuing to root out what the Emeritus Pope Benedict described as the filth of the child abuse scandals, that have rocked the Church in recent years. There can be no doubt that Pope Francis will continue to act with an iron fist when it comes to sorting out sexual transgressions and there will be no room for cover-up. His struggle against the military government of Argentina together with the rise of liberal theology prefigures the battle against the pervasive rise of moral relativism in an increasingly secular West. “After a battle” he reportedly said, “you have to act firmly”.

The previous two pontiffs can be characterized as theological powerhouses, whose teaching was reinforced by a vast canon of personal writings and both of whom could be studied as philosophers and theologians in their own right. Following thirty-five years of academic reflection, many have felt that now is the time for some intellectual breathing space, to give the faithful time to digest and apply what we have been taught by John Paul II and Benedict XVI, who unpacked and applied the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. Whilst Pope Francis is no intellectual slouch – he trained as a chemist, before joining the priesthood, he has an undisguised passion for literature having taught the subject at University level alongside psychology, philosophy and theology and in true Jesuit tradition has encouraged priests to exercise their cerebral and artistic gifts, few people can pack the cerebral punch of Carol Wojtyla and Joseph Ratzinger.

Bergolio’s election is nonetheless a manifestation of the growing desire to see a different style of papacy, one that teaches and leads through its actions as well as words. It can be no surprise that a Cardinal noted for his humility and love of the poor has chosen St Francis of Assisi, the man who reformed the church through simplicity, as his namesake. Of humble origin, born of an Italian immigrant railway worker, Jorge Bergoglio has eschewed all trappings of office, avoiding media interviews and urging people not to spend money on plane tickets to Rome to celebrate his election to the Cardinalate in 2001, but instead to give the money to the poor. Instead of living in a lavish episcopal mansion in Buenos Aires, he chose instead to live in a small apartment where he cooked his own meals, did his own housework and took the bus around town visiting the poor, rather than a chauffeur driven limousine. True to form, following his election to the papacy, he chose to take the bus back to the hotel instead of using the Holy Father’s car, to spend one final night with the cardinals and emerged suitcases in hand in the hotel lobby, to pay his own bill.

In an era that is reaping the consequences of globalisation and the ravages of a rampant unchecked capitalism, the Christian message of concern for the poor and of social injustice is of paramount import. In Francis, we have a Pope who embodies the compassion of Christ, whether that be by kissing the feet of AIDS victims, or rolling up his sleeves and going out and ministering to the poor, accompanied by a rhetoric that denounces the failures of neo-liberalism.

One of the frustrating aspects of the papacy of the Pope Emeritus was that his constant critiques of an economy based on individualistic greed and mind-blowing masterclasses on natural law and reason were subsumed and ignored by a media only interested in sexual ethics and scandal. Pope Benedict’s problem was not that he was by any means ineffective, it is thanks to him that the Catholic Church now sets the gold standard in terms of child protection issue, but that self-promotion was not his forte and the Vatican failed to communicate the extensive measures that had been taken and neither did they initially understand the nature of a rolling global 24/7 media. At times it appeared that the Vatican press office consisted of an elderly telegraph machine and answerphone, allowing, in the words of Mark Twain, a lie to travel half way around the world, whilst the truth was still putting its shoes on.

The willingness to engage with the media could potentially pose one of the few problems for this naturally modest yet deeply spiritual man. Yet from the moment that the world caught of a glimpse of the new Pope it was clear, that whilst not possessing the natural charisma or showmanship of John Paul II, his prayerful nature demonstrated by breaking with tradition and asking the crowd to pray for him, before giving the customary blessing, this simplicity will be precisely how he will win hearts and minds in the New Evangelisation. Pope Francis is a man whose actions will demonstrate that he is all substance over what will be a very humble style.

Pope Francis has something for everyone, a seamless garment- a man who straddles all aspects of a diverse church, a man who holds the concepts of social justice as close to his heart as issues surrounding the unborn, the elderly and the protection of the nuclear family. His first papal blessing was given to a pregnant woman who happened to have got up early to pray at the basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore, where he too had gone to pray before the Roman image of the Mother of God. Pope Francis, will be a pope of the people, leading the way forward by example in prayer and in a lifestyle of simple humility.

Whilst there is some concern amongst traditionalists in terms of liturgical preferences, there is no reason to believe that he will be openly hostile to the reforms of Summorum Pontificorum – frankly he has bigger fish to fry and is too canny to alienate a significant proportion of the world’s faithful. Although yesterday’s Mass may have caused some facepalming amongst those delighted in Pope Benedict’s liturgical reform of the reform (‘Holy Father I love you already, but what’s with the polyester and freestanding altar’ said one friend), whilst Pope Francis may see a temporary return to practices that some may have hoped were on the decline, I think we have to remember that if he wishes to face the people, or changes the Benedictine altar set-up, it’s simply because he wants the people to see Christ – it is with good heart and intent, not because he has some secret liturgical agenda.

Though 76 and with only one lung, Pope Francis still has plenty of life to breathe into the Church, combining the evangelical zeal of St Francis Xavier, with the reforming simplicity good works and love of the poor of St Francis of Assisi. Whilst the Church may not be in ruins, this holy man from the South may be just the breath of fresh air that it needs. Jesuit decision-maker and political negotiator melded with poor mendicant friar will sow the seeds for a twenty-first century Catholic revival, in a world grown jaded and weary with the selfish excesses of consumerism. Catholics will need to start putting their money where their mouths are.

Pope Francis on an Argentinian tube — Snapped unaware on the Tube

Dog collars and wedding rings

According to Damian Thompson, the next Pope must think seriously about married priests. It may be that Damian has a point, as we all know celibacy is a discipline and not a doctrine of the Catholic church, the Church will ordain married men who have previously been in ministry, the discussion is a perfectly valid one, however I imagine that before such a far-reaching move were considered, the opinions of existing clergy spouses would be sought and taken into consideration.

Here’s my fourpennorth, speaking from the point of view of someone who was a clergy spouse and will shortly be one again – it’s interesting, we don’t often hear from the point of view of the clergy wives, who tend to quietly keep their heads down and get on with life, which should give something of an indication of the nature of the role.

Damian distinguishes between the vocation of priesthood and that of celibacy and says that the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. He may well be right in that, but priesthood entails that one fashions and patterns one’s life around that of Jesus Christ, who was himself a celibate male. The apostles were admittedly married, but this was prior to their call to follow Jesus, there is absolutely nothing in the Gospels that suggest that they married subsequent to this. Celibacy should therefore be the norm, it’s a gift that my husband has begun to really appreciate as he has be drawn closer into the Catholic church and though he does not wish either myself or his children away, he is acutely aware that celibacy is a gift that he cannot give, although if I were to predecease him then he would not be allowed to re-marry, which is something that he has had to consider carefully. Celibacy affords a freedom that is simply not available to married men, on both a practical and spiritual level. Fr Terry Martin, the Vocations Director for the diocese of Arundel and Brighton, puts it beautifully:

a celibate discovers again and again the truth that he finds everything he needs in God .

It isn’t simply about the practical consequences or the being free to serve and pour oneself out fully in the service of your people, which is a functional consequence of celibacy, but it’s about having a heart to dedicate fully in the service of the Lord.

Does this mean that my husband is going to be less of a priest, or not a priest in the fullest sense? No, because like all priests, once ordained he will have an indelible mark on his soul, there is only one sacrament of ordination, it does not have first or second-class orders, but the church recognises the duality of vocation in those cases of convert priests who were not brought up in the tradition that they would need to choose between marriage and priesthood, as well as recognising and honouring the previous ministry.

Married priests have a lot to bring to their ministry, they will have personal and direct experience of married life and often physical fatherhood. Having had a few years out of ministry prior to ordination was an enormous gift to my husband, not only strengthening his call back to the altar, but also the experience of a full-time lay profession and juggling the demands of a young family, perennially pregnant wife along with keeping up with his spiritual formation, prayer life and volunteer work, will stand him in good stead, in terms of understanding the pressures and challenges for Catholic families, who are desperately trying to keep the faith. He also understands the great challenges and enormous gift of the Church’s teaching on sexuality and will be able to communicate that in a very open and honest way that might perhaps prove more difficult for a celibate priest.

But there is, as both Fr Tim and Fr Sean Finigan note, a duality of heart at play here. Exlaodicea also has some poignant insights. Though one should not focus solely on the practical nature of a married priesthood, it would have consequences, not least who on earth is going to support all these married clergy, most of whom, would presumably have a fair few children, for obvious reasons. Not all presbyteries are sprawling Victorian piles, some are very functional 2 bed houses, built in the 50s and 60s when the time of the housekeeper was beginning to decline. Suitable accommodation, ideally near to decent Catholic schooling needs to be found. A married priest with children simply cannot be moved in and out of various parishes at will, as to do so would disrupt the childrens’ education, so a bishop will find that he has far less flexibility. He’ll have to find a parish or ministry able to support the married priest and his family, together with a suitable house, and leave him in situ there for quite some time, or at least until the children have flown the nest.

Those are really minor issues in the grand scheme of things. A clergy spouse has to understand that her husband does not have a job but a vocation, regardless of denomination. This entails a couple of points. Firstly, a priestly wife is going to have to share a deep love of the faith. A cafeteria Catholic or generic go to Church once a year Christian is simply not going to be well suited. An Anglo-Catholic vicar friend describes his frustrating experience of dating an Evangelical. She was, by all accounts a lovely girl, but didn’t understand or agree with concepts such as infant Baptism or Eucharistic adoration (why are you worshipping a piece of bread) which made for some fraught moments, when he felt that perhaps he was being inadvertently attacked, or just didn’t want to engage in apologetics in his own home. I guess we all search for someone who innately understands us and shares our goals. Antoine de Saint Exupery has a wonderfully apt quote about love – it does not consist in gazing at each other, but in looking outward together in the same direction.

So if a spouse has the same devout faith as her priestly husband, she is going to understand that vocation will often need to come first and before her needs and wants and sometimes above the family. An example might be an RCIA class on Valentines Day, or an evening interview doing marriage prep with a couple on her birthday. Agape will often need to trump eros. It’s also quite a scary thing being a clergy spouse. You don’t have care of souls, but you share your life with someone who acts in personae Christi. On that terrible day of judgement you will be asked to account as to whether or not you helped or hindered in the care of souls and there is really no excuse for spiritual laxity.

A clergy spouse has to understand that whether she likes it or not, to some extent she has to keep an open house and be happy to accept visitors at all hours and be ready to feed multitudes at the drop of a hat. I remember one occasion when Robin (bless his cotton socks) had no idea what it might be like following the birth of a new baby and announced when child 2 was about 6 weeks old, that we had 14 deanery clergy coming for lunch the next day and would I be able to rustle up a spot of lunch! (Gosh did I feel smug when I managed it, baby lay in her Moses basket in the middle of the living room likes a sacrificial lamb, surrounded by several clergy, whilst one elderly Father sat in my special breastfeeding rocking chair, noting that it was the most comfortable chair he’d ever sat in and asking where I bought it, to which I despatched him off to Mothercare!)

I digress, but what that means is often, in effect, it can be difficult for a clergy spouse to work – she can’t rely on her husband to help out with childcare and thus to a certain extent her ministry has to revolve around his. She has to be flexible, discreet, patient, diplomatic and tactful. So when Ethel says to you “oooh you had a late night, I saw you had your light on reading til 1am” or it takes 3 hours to get around Sainsburys after being buttonholed by half the parish who seem to take an unnerving interest in what you might have in your trolley (oooh Fr Robin, he does like his lemon meringue pie) or have folk sweep in and out of your home, which is often used to hold meetings in, you just have to smile sweetly and accept it and make the tea and sandwiches for whoever has come a knocking at whatever time of the day or night. On one memorable occasion a former parishioner attempted to quiz me on our intimate life – being a clergy wife seems to hold particular fascination in that respect for the prurient. Oh and don’t expect weekends to be your own either, for obvious reasons.

That’s not meant as a litany of horror, but rather a jolt of realism, being married to any clergyman is a vocation itself and puts a unique pressure on a marriage. In the Catholic church it is recognised that married priests do indeed have a dual vocation so technically they are never in charge of a parish, but still there will be times when a priest is pulled in two directions and may need to prioritise his family. Plus no-one has mentioned the kids – having a Catholic priest as a dad does put quite a bit of pressure and expectation upon them. We’ve heard of David Burrows MP having had his children bullied at school as a result of his homophobia. Being an RC priest is about as counter-cultural as it gets, and things can be even more complicated if you are a governor of or affiliated with a school, in which your children are getting a hard time. And there might be times when the children often have to miss out on their dad’s presence at things – simply due to the erratic hours that a priest might work. One can’t refuse the dying the sacrament of the sick due to a parents’ evening or school play.

So the idea that a married priesthood is going to be a wonderful thing and make priests so much happier, is highly dependent upon him finding a spouse who is going to be wholly supportive of his vocation. What happens if she isn’t? Is it fair for a parish to be dealing with the fallout of their priest’s marital breakdown?

And we all know that the idea of a married clergy being less likely to abuse, is a canard. The argument doesn’t make sense – in the UK less than 1% of people were shamefully abused by Catholic priests. The NSPCC states that as much as 24% of the population are victims of abuse that took place in childhood or adolescent , of which 65.9% was perpetrated by those under the age of 18. Clearly then, the majority of the blame for the abuse cannot be laid at the door of the Catholic Church, let alone celibacy, given that the vast majority of abuse is reported as taking place in family situations. Even in the US where the number of clerical abuse victims rises to 4%, this is a lesser figure of abusers than, say teachers. Most of those responsible for abuse are those who are permitted sexual relationships with others and celibacy does not account for the abuse that has taken place within the Church of England. That’s not to undermine the seriousness of the offences that did take place, but there is nothing to suggest that celibacy is responsible for abuse, the evidence points firmly away from drawing this conclusion. Which leads me nicely into the next point.

The idea that sex is a need that must be fulfilled otherwise it will lead to abuses is one that must be fought as it seeks to shift blame away from the abuser themselves. All of us have self-control and there can be no excuse for sexual assault. Furthermore those who look towards marriage as a being some sort of cure for these tendencies not only ignore the statistics on married men and abuse, but are deluded if they think that marriage is any sort of guarantee against sexual frustration. Even the happiest marriages go through periods of abstinence, for a variety of reasons and most married couples, especially those with busy lives and/or young children will testify that they aren’t swinging from the chandeliers seven nights a week. This post-modern idea of sex as a basic human need, such as food or water is one that must be fought back against. There are many non religious celibates who live happy and fulfilled lives and to treat a wife as a vehicle with whom to overcome sexual frustration is wholly contrary to Catholic teaching on marriage. Clergy spouses will have read the canonist Ed Peters on marital continence with alarm.

The other point of contention in Damian’s piece is that it wholly relies on his anecdotal evidence – most suburban priests in various Western areas are gay (which ones) and most clergy in Africa have at least one secret wife. It’s impossible to verify or discount these statistics one way or another. It’s definitely true that no vocations crises exist in Africa, seminaries are turning away candidates due to lack of space.

The happiness of a married priesthood hinges on a very narrow definition of marriage being all about sex and is mooted as a false panacea to the abuse crisis. Personally I am extremely grateful that the Holy Father has been generous enough to grant exceptions on a one-off basis, but as part of this process, I needed to pledge my whole-hearted support, knowing full well what this would entail. The happiness of a married priesthood is wholly dependent upon a good quality relationship and a wife who can get 100% behind her husband’s vocation, and places an additional burden on the priest himself who will always have divided loyalties.

That’s not to say that a married priesthood can’t work, the Eastern Rite and Orthodox churches have good approaches, but we should be in no rush to lift this and it is difficult to see how celibacy could be promoted as the ideal standard, were priests suddenly allowed to marry. One also has to note that all this speculation seems terribly unfair and unkind to those seminarians currently being formed in the expectation of celibacy as well as existing clergy. One of the problems around the time of Vatican II was that there was very little formation of this nature – everything seemed to be up for grabs and the process of formation was not as thorough as it could have been, seminarians were ill-equipped to quote with the pressures of the then emerging sexual revolution. These days seminarians are well aware as to the temptations of the modern world and have at least six years to consider their vocation.

I hear on the grapevine that Mrs Newton was a little taken aback by Damian Thompson’s piece. I’m not surprised, I expect she greeted it with mixture of delight (how flattering to have a piece in a broadsheet newspaper calling into question the discipline of celibacy based on a brief dinner encounter) and horror. Opinions on the merits of celibacy should not be hung off the back of individuals. Though many congregations are open and welcoming of married Catholic clergy as Damian notes, there are still some people that see marriage as an impairment to Father’s ability to be at their beck and call and make their feelings known, quite vociferously and at deliberately unsocial hours. At the other end of the scale, one acts as an unwilling or unintentional ambassador or advert for a married priesthood, such as in the case of Mrs Newton.

A change to the rules is one that needs to be approached with due caution. Being a clergy wife is a difficult path to navigate, particularly in a world where celibacy is the norm. Behaviour that would be acceptable in the Anglican church, is not possible in a Catholic setting, where wives are unusual and tolerated. It is not your ministry and one has to be extra careful not to tread on toes or offend a myriad of people or be seen in any way as interfering or taking over. I guess a suitable parallel could be drawn to my sixth form, which at the time was integrating girls into a formerly all-boys school. In my year there were 15 girls to 115 boys and many of the masters did not see our presence as a positive thing. It’s unfair to say that existing clergy have been anything other than welcoming, all of them have been, but all Catholic clergy wives I am friends with know that we are an exception, not the rule and have no desire to trailblaze or queer the pitch for any future former convert wives, or extol the virtues of a married priesthood. Our situations are as unique and individual as we are, and we are able to testify to both the positives and negatives.

Just as a vocation to priesthood is a calling, one could argue the same of a clergy spouse. A priest requires years of formation, one could argue that a clergy wife needs similar, she certainly learns things as she goes along on the job, often getting things wrong and making gaffes along the way. Unlike her husband she is not in receipt of any sacrament, and yet she is subject to similar scrutiny and certain standards and expectations of holiness and behaviour. She knows that her marriage and conduct will, whether she likes it or not, be held up as an example, for good or ill as will her appearance and the behaviour of her children. She knows that her husband’s vocation is ontological in a way that her marriage is not – she will no longer be married in heaven, her husband will still be a priest.

There’s quite a lot of pressure on her shoulders, it is neither a panacea nor a situation for the feint-hearted. Most of us love our spouses on account of who they are, not their job. A clergy wife loves her husband for who he is and that includes accepting, welcoming and embracing his vocation, no matter how difficult or counter-cultural. She will often need to accept that a career may not be possible for her and neither will a permanent home. Like those original fishers of men, she will need to follow the Lord wherever he is leading or calling her husband.

I never thought I’d wind up married to a Catholic priest, I think the nuns at my school would have a blue fit were they ever to find out where my life has led. But at least I knew what I was getting into when I married a man with a vocation, which I accepted as being part of who he was and impossible to separate out, being integrated into his identity given he’d felt the calling from a very young age.

It’s worth looking up the work of American sociologist Andrew Greeley who discovered that celibate priests scored much more highly on the happiness index than their married Anglican counterparts. The challenges that face the priesthood are not celibacy-related. Everyone should know exactly what they are getting themselves into, before getting carried away by notions of dog collars and wedding rings.

The Cardinals and reverse psychology

The words of the Secretariat of State seem particularly prescient in the light of the damaging allegations that have surfaced regarding Cardinal Keith O’Brien in this morning’s Guardian.

Once again the media seem to be disregarding the rules surrounding natural justice and due process that would be followed in any criminal court, namely a presumption of innocence until proof to the contrary, and are commenting upon these allegations as those they were established fact, with the usual suspects rubbing their hands in glee, not least those who thought Cardinal O’Brien’s Bigot of the Year award, fitting.

With regards to the allegations, the following questions present themselves:

Why are they only being made now? If the concern has to do with whether or not Cardinal O’Brien should be allowed to vote in the Conclave, why given the age of the alleged incidents, did the accusers not make known their concerns prior to the conclave of 2005, or even earlier in 2001, when it was announced that O’Brien would be elected to the college of cardinals?

Do the comments surrounding priestly celibacy have anything to do with this not least in terms of the media exposure of Cardinal O’Brien of late? Does Cardinal O’Brien’s stance on gay marriage have any part to play on behalf of those who would seek to expose or out him? It ties into the first point – the timing seems peculiar.

Who leaked the nuncio’s emails to the Guardian and why?

If these allegations do turn out to be sadly true, it would not appear that any criminal offence has been committed. These would appear to be consenting adults – there are no accusations of assault. Surely this would be an internal church matter and not within the remit of secular authority? Cardinal O’Brien is due to retire in a month’s time, what action are the priests expecting the church to take? An individual’s sexuality should have no bearing when it comes to prayerfully discerning whom the Holy Spirit might be guiding into the Chair of St Peter. It sets a very dangerous precedent to assume that clerics are guilty of any allegations without due process being followed and neither is it for the secular world to interfere in the internal processes of the church. So far, we have had one side of the story and it would seem very much as though Cardinal O’Brien is subject to trial by media.

All of which brings me neatly onto Cardinal Mahony, who due to his mishandling of priests guilty of sexual abuse in his diocese, is also subject to similar calls to stay away from the conclave. Let’s be clear. Cardinal Mahony, though guilty of severe negligence is not a pedophile or abuser himself. It’s hard to get one’s head around why he didn’t report these abhorrent crimes to the police, or at the very least lock the perpetrators up in a remote monastery somewhere, but as has been documented, times were different then. The psychology of abusers was not understood in the same way, it was genuinely believed that therapy could cure a disordered sexuality, and the abusers’ professions of repentance were taken at face value.

There’s a whole essay into the factors contributing to the abuse that took place and its subsequent cover-up by local diocesan bishops and parallels to be drawn with what happened in other non-Church institutions such as for example the BBC, but it isn’t fair to imply, nor is there evidence to suggest, that those who did cover-up the scandal, did so because they didn’t care about the victims or because they thought that abusers were likely to re-offend and simply didn’t care, what enquiry after enquiry has demonstrated is that they were misdirected out of love for the church and actually ignored the regulations that were already in place which directed bishops to report these crimes to the police. There is no basis for the claim that various bishops simply didn’t care – the credible answer is, that as prelates such as Mahoney have testified, they simply didn’t get it.

Does that mean he should be disbarred from voting in the conclave to satisfy the demands of a baying press? I would posit that a Cardinal who has personally faced the scandal of clerical sex abuse and who has faced widespread criticism and rebuke not only from the outside world, but also from his peers, would be ideally placed to prayerfully reflect upon who should succeed Pope Benedict and which candidate may possess the necessary qualities. Cardinal Mahony indisputably knows the enormity of the scandal and the huge repercussions for those who may get it wrong. There can be no doubt that he does now understand the seriousness of it all. Perhaps a good comparison would be that of the airline industry? Whenever a pilot has been implicated as being at fault in a serious incident, such as the Kegworth disaster in 1989, British Airways always rush to offer that pilot a job, the First Officer in that tragic crash is now a serving Captain with them – the rationale being that they will never make that mistake again.

Cardinal Mahony may well have made a grievous mistake, one for which he has been disciplined by his successor, but that is no reason to doubt his judgement or ability to vote in the conclave. He may well be better placed than many of the others and have a valuable insight into the motivations and catastrophic failures.

Ultimately whether either of the cardinals attend is a matter for them, their consciences and their fellow peers. It is not for the media or general public to judge and were the Vatican to announce that they were succumbing to public pressure and the cardinals disbarred from voting, this would set a very dangerous precedent, besides which no-one has the authority to prevent their attendance. Only they can recuse themselves. No-one can make judgements about others’ hearts. O’Brien may well be innocent, only time will tell.

In the meantime, anyone wishing the cardinals not to exercise their rights, ought to learn the basics of reverse psychology. The louder the calls for non-participation, the greater the guarantee and likelihood that both Cardinal O’Brien and Cardinal Mahony, will attend, and no-one could blame them for doing so.

A fantastic infrastructure

Alright – forgive the obligatory disgusted of Tunbridge Wells tone, but remember how everyone scoffed at the idea that following ‘same-sex marriage’, the next step would be to follow in the footsteps of Spain and replace the terms of ‘mother’ and ‘father’ with Progenitor A and Progenitor B?

It would appear that, Elton John and David Furnish have decided to lead the way by declaring that David Furnish is the ‘mother’ on the birth certificate of their new baby son, Elijah as well as their elder son Zachary.

That’s right – David Furnish is officially recognised as a mother, despite the fact that he isn’t, he never can be given that he possesses entirely the wrong set of equipment. So not content with redefining marriage, we now need to redefine motherhood and fatherhood into one homogenous mass known as parenthood. Or is it that David Furnish recognises the importance of a mother, just as the LGBT lobby recognise the importance of marriage and has decided to reclaim it for himself? After all, why should motherhood be restricted to women on account of their sexual organs and reproductive ability? Isn’t that rather sexist? This is why we see the overlap between queer theory and feminism, because by declaring that gender is a separate entity to sex and performative in nature, it paves the way for boys to be girls, men to be mothers, girls to be fathers and vice-versa and everybody gets an excuse to indulge their own notions of self-identity.

And whilst I recognise that gender dysphoria can be a serious and debilitating condition requiring treatment of some sort or another, transsexualism or its younger sister transvestitism, is all very well and good, so long as it does not impact on other people, although on a very local level it will mean that when visiting my friends or taking the children to the beach at nearby Rottingdean, I’d better be sure not to drink too much tea as personally I am extremely uncomfortable using gender neutral lavatories in common with, I suspect, most women.

Causing a minor personal inconvenience or embarrassment is in a wholly different league however, to a sacred doctrine whose effects impact on vulnerable children. Men cannot be mothers, women cannot be fathers and to declare otherwise, no matter how legally binding one wishes to make this by declaring it on official documents, does children a massive disservice by seeking to deny them the links to their biological parents.

I am not ashamed to admit that the reason for my distaste and opposition to this, is like many forms of alleged ‘phobia’ , due to feeling threatened. It is threatening when on account of their sexual preferences other people seek to deny that my biology, the fact that I carried my 4 children in my womb myself, that I birthed them, that I breastfed them, that I held them, soothed them, sang to them and tended to them in a way that only a mother can, that they responded to me, from the moment they were born as being comfort and love- I only needed to pick up the newborns when they were crying for them to be instantaneously soothed; all of these things are irrelevant and none of these make me a mother. That, if necessary the state could determine that two men would be every bit as good for them as their mother and their father. It worries me on behalf of every single woman everywhere, that the unique and innate qualities that make women mothers, are now deemed irrelevant, motherhood is just now another form of childcare. Mothers are simply biological vessels and nothing more – something that’s bought into by a frightening amount of women, and was highlighted by Hilary Mantel’s critique of the Duchess of Cambridge. The image she projected was not one that Kate’s extended family have imposed onto her, but one that she has imposed upon Kate, and one can’t help but note that Hilary Mantel has herself suffered from unfortunate infertility problems, which might perhaps explain her disdain towards child-bearing women.

Biology must not be written off in order to satisfy the whims of sexual identity for a minority. To do so is the first step in a dangerous process of dehumanisation. By degrading motherhood, feminism has managed to wipe thousands of years of evolutionary history off the map, a woman’s unique ability to give birth does not render her in any way special, deserving of extra protection or elevate her in any way, it rather weakens her and her womb is something of an encumbrance that makes her not as good as men.

And, if any more proof were required as to how this new child of Elton John and David Furnish has been commodified, their comments are extremely telling, due to a ‘wonderful nanny, fantastic paediatrician, all the great support’, they had found Elijah far more easy to cope with.’

‘Now we have that wonderful infrastructure in place so we can just sit back more and enjoy the little person themselves without the worry – or as much worry.’

Most of us don’t have the luxury of nannies and paediatricians or even great support, particularly if we are not living near our families. Our children are not little pets to be cooed over, admired and enjoyed, no matter how enjoyable or rewarding raising them can be, children are little human beings requiring infinite love, patience, time, energy and self-sacrifice and in those early baby days, enjoyment is not top of the list. You do what you can to get through the back-to-back breast feeding, nappy changing, endless walking up and down stairs to get them to sleep, waving toys and rattles at them, blowing bubbles to cheer them out of their grumpiness, whilst trying to fit everything else in around that. Eventually you’ll be rewarded with a smile of recognition or a soft purring that would indicate they are sleeping contentedly, you’ll feel your baby’s soft cheek against your flesh, gripping on for dear life and comfort whilst they sleep, and that is a reward in and of itself. A baby is not something to sit back and enjoy whilst everyone else gets on and does the hard graft.

Most people don’t need to buy a fantastic infrastructure and that’s because they already have it – a loving mother and father.

Vigil vigilance

Thinking about this whole vigil issue, I’ve just had a bit of crucial insight, courtesy of a friend who was also thinking out loud. Being so close, I just couldn’t see how a peaceful pro-life prayer vigil, especially one that helps women in desperate situations, could be perceived in a bad light by other pro-life groups, or how they undermine education.

The answer is all to do how with how they’ve been framed by a frantic pro-choice movement desperate to discredit and how this narrative has been picked up by a sensationalist media.

40 Days for Life are being portrayed as a weird fringe activity, dangerous Americans have been conflated with prayer vigils and then education has been chucked in, to make the whole pro-life movement appear as one threatening mess. Prayer vigils are the hinge that allow the pro-choice movement to discuss the importation of American methods and we all know that Americans kill people, American culture is innately evil and all traces of it must be stamped out lest it corrupts and ruins our society.

Groups such as Education for Choice, (who are owned by the Brook sexual health charity) are campaigning for pro-life groups such as SPUC, LIFE and the Right-to-Life trust to be kicked out of schools, claiming that children deserve to be taught about ‘individual choice in a safe environment’ and who promote ‘enabling easy non judgemental access to abortion’, have openly called for parents’ rights to remove children from sex-education lessons to be removed as they are ‘neo-Victorian’. Abortion eduction in schools needs to be vastly improved, in their considered and wholly unbiased position as consultants to abortion providers, opinion. It’s worth reading how they single out SPUC’s campaign against same-sex marriage here.

This passage from their toolkit for best practice, makes disturbing reading for anyone who may be concerned about women or young girls being coerced into abortion and should surely make anyone who would claim that abortion is a woman’s right to choose, bristle:

If a young man has or goes on to have experience of unplanned pregnancy with a partner, it is important that he knows who he can talk to and where he can go for help and support, as well as being able to signpost his partner to appropriate agencies. This is especially important when a couple are not agreed about what the outcome of a pregnancy should be, which can be a very difficult situation for a young man to face. Signposting to young men’s services is an important part of abortion education.

It’s worth looking at that toolkit in full – here’s another passage that stood out, warning schools about inviting in pro-life speakers and telling them to check the organisation’s website as an outside speaker can be lent weight and credibility by their invitation to speak:

For example, some websites promote abstinence as the only effective way of preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections; understate the efficacy of condoms and hormonal contraceptives; cite emergency contraception as a form of abortion; stigmatise homosexuality; and overstate the risks of abortion, in relation to physical and mental health and wellbeing.

Without stating the blindingly obvious here, we can see what pro-life groups are up against and how they could do without the bad press of prayer vigils.

I’ve unpicked the inherent racism and ill-conceived myths about America and the pro-life movement previously. In a country which has a wholly different political demographic, not to mention very liberal gun laws, atrocities will sadly occur, as they will all over the world. It is not the vigils themselves that incur and incite violence – it is a handful of unhinged individuals who take the law into their own hands. 8 individuals in the US abortion industry have been killed since Roe v Wade in 1972. That’s 8 too many, pro-lifers abhor violence of any sort and believe all life to be sacred, (the clue is in the name), but this isn’t a case of big scary gun-toting fundamentalists regularly shooting at folk. It’s actually those who are on the vigil who regularly put themselves in the line of fire, being shot at and fire-bombed in some cases, by those from within the abortion clinic. Just as the LGBT lobby distanced themselves from and condemned the individual who shot at a worker at the Family Research Centre last year, pro-lifers equally condemn any who defile their cause by the use of senseless violence.

That prayers and vigils are an important part of pro-life work goes without saying. They matter profoundly and we should not have a situation where one part of a cause undermines another – this should not be an either/or and one of the strengths of 40 days for life is that it has managed to unite many of the different sections within the pro-life movement and bring together Christians of all denominations.

I can well understand the antipathy, but we have to bear in mind, this is not purely a political or educational effort, there is a spiritual dimension and this highlights one of the downsides of a purely secular pro-life group, who wish to distance themselves from the publicly praying weirdos.

I think what those of us on vigils have to do and keep on doing, is what we’ve always done, just quietly and continually pray and know that our witness will eventually shine through. The lies and the conflations of the abortion industry can easily be disproved, BPAS or Marie Stopes have admitted that there is no need to provide clinic escorts, they know full well no harassment, let alone violence takes place, they have cameras constantly trained upon those on the vigils and there have been no arrests or requests to move on and neither do volunteers engage with or respond to any insults or abuse. Neither do they hold up any judgemental or inflammatory slogans or material – there is simply a verse from scripture and a sign which states ‘we are here to help’. If women entering clinics feel bad, it is because their own conscience has been pricked or because they cannot cope with a physical manifestation that not everyone is prepared to validate abortion, as opposed to anything that the volunteers may say or do.

If 40 days for Life are being portrayed as a bizarre fringe movement, the absence of Catholics only serves to reinforce the image and allows the pro-choice movement to dictate the frame. If however, they prove by their witness, actions and lives that they save, that the only threat vigils pose is to the abortion clinics’ balance sheet, the general public will begin to see behind the lies.

I understand the concern, the vigils are being used as a hook on which pro-choice groups are seeking to get pro-lifers out of education, as theirs is the only voice to be tolerated, but this attack upon freedom of religion and attempt at one-sided indoctrination in which abortion is presented as a preferable option in some situations and at worst as morally neutral, must be resisted on the strongest possible terms and shown up for its inherent and ironic illiberality. Prayer vigils should have nothing to do with whether or not children ought to be given a wholly one-sided and relativistic view of sexual morality and neither should they be banished from our streets due to a misconceived fear of US style ‘culture wars’. The UK is not the US and culture wars feed upon an atmosphere of intolerance. The UK is thankfully a largely tolerant country without the same divisions as exist in the US. The issue of abortion is not split so evenly along political lines and 40 Days for Life is not a political protest or one that seeks to denounce women or those with a pro-choice mentality.

The only ‘war’ here is the cultures of life versus death and we should not allow fear to drive prayer out of the public square. The battle for education goes way beyond the activities of those praying for an end to abortion outside a clinic.

A Battle between Heaven and Hell

I went to see David Bereit, one of the founders of the 40 Days for Life movement, when he came to give encouragement and support to those involved in the vigils outside the Wistons clinic in Brighton, at a talk last night.

There were many positive and encouraging stories of what the movement has achieved, how a simple one-hour prayer vigil by a group of 3 friends outside a clinic in Texas in 2004 has rapidly expanded to become a worldwide and global movement, and the importance of the UK in this effort. Colette, one of the volunteers I met in London during the last campaign had travelled here in order to be a part of it, having been so impressed by what she’d read and has now taken the campaign back to her home country of South Africa. Another volunteer has also taken the campaign to Russia; the UK is seen as an international hub or a global gateway, what happens here influences other countries, so seen in this context its not surprising that the opposition has been quite so vociferous.

David talked about a seminal moment in his pro-life journey which sent shivers down my spine – whatever the explanation for events, there could be no doubting his sincerity and it certainly played well with the mainly Evangelical attendees. David sees the mass slaughter of the unborn as the great spiritual battle of our age and attempts to rouse people out of their apathy and reluctance. Abortion is, he says, the defining crisis of our generation, it is literally a battle between life and death, a battle between heaven and hell and what we will be accountable to God for. What we did and what we did not do.

In terms of the eschatological terminology I think he definitely has a point. Though many of the topics of this blog are unpalatable to many, it is without a doubt, the posts regarding abortion and the 40 days for life movement in particular, that arouse the most anger, vitriol and abuse, especially anything where I might write about pro-life witness. Someone once said to me ‘Caroline, you’re really rattling the cages of hell here’ and whilst I would eschew any description that would attempt to paint me in any sort of saintly, righteous or pious light, knowing that I am very very far from being pure in heart, it does sometimes feel like there are dark forces at work, not least in terms of anger and various attempts to prevent or put stumbling blocks in the way of 40 Days for Life, which has three elements at its heart – prayer and fasting, clinic vigils and community outreach.

Had the local feminist collective known about last night’s visit, they would no doubt have been protesting outside, with banners about ‘slut-shaming’ and removing their rights, we would have been seen as a group of moralisers seeking to oppress them and violently force them into gruesome births or seedy filthy backstreet abortions involving coat-hangers, whereas actually the discussion revolved around women’s welfare, what more could be done to help, how to make outreach compassionate and effective. There was no judgement about the women themselves let alone their sexual morality. This was a group of Christians wanting to bear witness and demonstrate caritas in action.

40 Days for Life was chosen as a result of its many biblical references – Noah was in the ark for 40 days and nights whilst God punished the world with a flood, Moses spent 40 days and nights on a mountain with God on two occasions, Goliath taunted the Israelite army for 4o days, God was planning to destroy the city of Ninevah in 40 days, before he saw the acts of repentance of the Ninevites and had compassion on them and in the New Testament, Jesus was fasted and was tempted by the devil when he was at his weakest after 40 days and 40 nights and of course following the Resurrection, he appeared to his followers and disciples for a period of 40 days before He ascended into heaven. Forty days is then a time of testing and a time of transformation.

Forty days for life is living God’s vision as if we were being salt and light. The clinic vigils take place because we know that whenever two or more are gathered in the name of Jesus, he is there among them. It is to bring Christ’s presence where it is most needed – outside the abortion clinics and to awaken the conscience of the Christian community. The frequent turnarounds (there have been at least 10 already in the past 8 days in London) show that sometimes God can reach the heart of the mother.

Which brings me on to the hard part. There is something troubling my conscience about which I have agonised over, in terms of whether or not to remain silent. I mentioned that last night the meeting was mainly attended by the Evangelical stalwarts of the campaign. Only 4 Catholics attended, including myself and the head of the Worthing branch of SPUC, despite the fact that Brighton and Hove is a thriving deanery. The Wistons clinics conducts 4,000 abortions every year, equivalent to two and half classes of schoolchildren every week, in the heart of our city.

One of the attendees. Michael Petek (who comments here on Protect the Pope) discussed his disappointment having read on a local parish newsletter, that the local deanery clergy were in consensus that Catholics should not attend the 40 Days for Life vigils because of the negative press coverage and because it undermined the educational work of other pro-life charities such as LIFE.

This has been weighing really heavily on me since I saw the announcement myself on a pewsheet on Sunday and it’s caused me many tears and anguish for a number of reasons. Firstly I know the clergy of the deanery, they are good wise and holy men and I have no doubt as to their integrity or that this is a considered decision. Secondly, I don’t want to be seen as an agitator or denouncer and someone who doesn’t know her place. The thing is that I’m very much of the WSIWYG school – what you see is very much what you get with me, I wear my heart on my sleeve much more than is probably wise and it’s why I would never consider a career in politics or the diplomatic service. I am worried that I am the wrong person to speak out on this one, for a variety of reasons, but what I would say is that my concerns and hurt are not personal grievances with individuals.

Like many Catholics, I respect, trust and look up to our clergy. If they advise me as to a course of action, I will follow their guidance. Therefore if they are advising people not to join the 40 Days for Life vigils, it feels like something of act of disobedience to participate. Whilst I know that clergy are not infallible and we have to be aware of clericalism, to participate in a prayer vigil, now feels like an open act of defiance. It will certainly deter many of the faithful from getting involved, knowing that the diocesan clergy seem to have reached a consensus (according to the notice) that the vigils are not a good thing for Catholics.

Personally I can’t help but feel very hurt and almost betrayed, given that I do volunteer a lot of my precious spare time and energy to this cause trying to shake people out of their apathy, which is obviously seen as being unhelpful and counterproductive. One of the other Catholics who attended last night’s meeting, kept repeating in disbelief,’ is this really what was being said’, such was her incredulity. Catholics, innate defenders of the unborn, are being urged not to publicly pray outside abortion clinics, because of what other people might think and because it might obscure the pro-life message in schools.

Think about that for a minute. Priests are telling Catholics not to pray in public, for fear of public opinion. It just feels so innately wrong and if nothing else, hands a huge victory to the pro-choicers. I am not clear as to how 40 days for Life might damage the work of LIFE in schools either.

I don’t wish to sow discord or more factionalism. I am more sad and hurt than anything else, but to me this seems symptomatic of the spiritual battle we are facing, one which I think we will win and one that I am proud to play my part in, despite the smears of those who would wish to portray us as fundamentalist nutters looking to harass and threaten, when we, along with others, know the truth. Compare and contrast what the Good Counsel Network are offering with what the pro-choicers are offering.

Unborn children are saved, they may be small in number, but they are every bit as precious and valuable. Hearts and minds are changed by peaceful prayerful witness and surely as Christians we believe that God answers prayer and in the power of vigils? I cannot get my head around Catholics being asked to stay away from public prayer vigils for the unborn in this Year of Faith, by those who have care of souls. I am deeply deeply troubled and scandalised, whilst not wishing to cause scandal or escalate matters. I am writing this with a very heavy heart indeed.

As I said, I am no saint, but I have been praying here to Bernadette Soubirous, someone else whose public prayer was discouraged by the clergy. To me, this is simply yet another manifestation of David’s words, this is spiritual warfare, this is the battle between heaven and hell and I pray to God that I’m on the right side. One day my children and grandchildren will ask me ‘what did you do in the fight against abortion’ and I hope to be able to tell them how I tried my best, I wasn’t afraid to be painted as a nutter and face public vitriol and abuse for praying for the unborn, that I tried to reach out and help women and change hearts and minds. I hope to be able to say the same to my Creator as well.

And before complaints come flooding in about the diocese or particular individuals (which won’t be published) I will state that this is an initiative that seems to be being supported by our diocese.

Please join me in prayers that it isn’t too late to change hearts and minds in Brighton. And let me know your thoughts from a Catholic perspective.

Joining the dots

I did a couple of media appearances yesterday (as my friend said, I’m getting to be like David Jason, always on the telly) regarding the revised NICE guidelines which propose that the NHS should now offer one free cycle of IVF to couples between the ages of 40-42. I didn’t get to expand upon my points about more effective techniques, ideally I would have liked to have discussed the success rates of NaPro technology and neither was it the forum to launch into apologetics surrounding assisted reproductive techniques.

Without going into a lengthy discourse as to the ethics and wisdom of IVF as a whole, one thing struck me as being missing from the entire debate. We, in the Western World have some very confused, peculiar and disjointed notions of female fertility, which are tied into the shortcomings of a society based on moral relativism, whereby personal autonomy is king and every choice is equally valid, regardless of consequences.

One of the recurrent themes of yesterday, was not that women were choosing to have their children late, simply that life didn’t pan out the way that they wanted – Mr Right didn’t turn up until their late ’30s and early ’40s by which point, female fertility is rapidly diminishing. Whilst on the one hand I totally sympathise, having made more than my fair share of romantic mistakes, I also think this must cause us to question the prevailing mentality with regards to female choice and autonomy, without wishing to remove any of those options from women.

Suzanne Moore makes some salient points here, not least emphasising the low success rates of IVF and echoing some of my themes around society’s attitudes towards the right age for motherhood. The Holy Grail of female choice, has paradoxically led to a situation whereby women feel that they have very little choice and control when it comes to the timing and amount of children. The everyday expectation for women is that following education they should go straight into the world of work, spend some time establishing financial independence and their career and only once secure should they then begin to think about potential offspring. The problem is that building up a successful career requires a substantial amount of time and effort which leaves precious little emotional and physical resources for the business of finding a life partner, which these days is treated as an optional extra to the all-consuming world of work and career. Add in the whole business of setting up and maintaining an independent home, it’s no surprise that most women aren’t really paying much attention to any sort of long-term game plan in terms of marriage and children. It’s all about surviving on a short-term basis, particularly in these days of austerity and hoping that the future will sort of magically fall into place, once everything else is established.

One of my suggestions was that women need to take into account the fact that fertility begins to decline frighteningly early at the age of 27, and begins to drop rapidly from the age of 35. Women (and men) need to be giving some thought as to starting their families earlier and we as a society need to be implementing solutions to make life more feasible for working women with children, seeing as we are in an economic situation which necessitates dual-income households. I also think that we need to readjust attitudes towards younger mothers, whilst no-one should be encouraging young teenage mothers, there is a palpable snobbery and distain towards mothers under 25. Whilst no-one should be making value judgements in terms of the age of parents, both the old and the young cohorts have their advantages and disadvantages, my experience has been that younger mothers tend to be much more flexible and adaptable in terms of their attitude to their children, and far less prone to stress as a result. Young mothers are less likely to have become perfectionist control freaks, stuck in their ways and tend to be able to take various setbacks or the less palatable aspects of childrearing in their stride, with patience and good humour – children being just the next exciting adventure. Having had a child in my twenties and then a progression of three in my mid thirties, each pregnancy becoming progressively more tiring, difficult and risky with age, I certainly think that youth has something of an advantage here.

Vanessa Feltz on BBC Radio London, felt that I was being overly prescriptive in terms of suggesting that women need to think about marriage earlier and it certainly could appear like a reactionary solution, but given not only the low success rates of IVF, but also the physical and emotional pain involved as well as the financial cost, society has little other choice and neither do women who need to accept that one day, it is likely that they are going to want to give serious consideration as to trying for a family.

Whilst Moore is indeed correct that society needs to be welcoming and accepting to mothers of all age, whether that be the teenage mother or the grandparent unexpectedly cast into a parental role as a result of unforeseen circumstances, she, in line with society as a whole, has got the whole issue back to front in terms of framing this issue of being solely about women, understandable when it is indeed women who bear the brunt of the responsibility for pregnancy and childbirth. The whole situation in terms of the growing problem of infertility, the costs of IVF and the rise in the age of the average first-time mother highlights the limitations of a society that is based solely around individualism and doing only what is right for oneself, in that our decisions always have some impact on others, especially if, as in the case of delaying motherhood, they result in others being asked to bear the cost.

Instead of thinking purely about women’s individual needs or even rights to have children, we need to start giving more consideration to children’s rights and needs in conjuction with our own.That children ideally need a loving mother and father in a stable relationship and with a permanent home is indisputable. We need to be putting that as our starting point, whilst factoring in that women have a limited window of opportunity in which they are able to conceive a child. That is not to usher people into hasty or unsuitable relationships, but that both sexes need to be giving the whole notion of finding a life partner, more thought much earlier than is currently the case. After all, who on their death bed, gives thanks for the hours spent in the confines of the office and which is a better legacy – a career as an HR manager or procurement officer for a paperclip company in Worthing, or a legacy of love and laughter in having brought and nurtured the next generation into being?

One of the whole perplexing aspects of this entire debate is that on the one hand women are being given a (worthy) ideal of being able to be in control of their reproductive destiny and then on the other, they are presented as victims who were passively and patiently waiting for Mr Right to come along. Actually I think there are several Mr Rights – Plato got this one wrong. Most women and men who marry older admit to having had several partners in their past with whom they could have had a happy and successful marriage and children, but that they had other priorities and lacked the maturity and desire for long-term commitment.

We have a situation whereby women are being enculturated into suppressing their natural fertility with long-acting hormones, (which take the body a long time to get back into sync and recover its natural rhythms of fertility), we have the NHS funding almost 200,000 abortions a year on the basis that it is not the ‘right time’ for a woman to have a baby and then on the other, they are shelling out copious amounts of cash for those who have unwittingly sleepwalked into infertility.

Female fulfilment is not solely to be found in the act of giving birth as feminists are always trying to tell us, some inelegant commentator tried to suggest that childbirth was no different to the act of defecation, but reproduction is clearly a sensitive issue that is innately and inexorably linked to our gender, which is why the feminists tie themselves in knots about it. Someone suggested that be it abortion or IVF, the whole issue is shrouded in blame in terms of women who have made the so-called ‘wrong’ decisions. Women are, according to this mentality, victims of their own Fertility with a capital F, either a rampant beast that needs to be tamed or an elusive will-o-the-wisp – but either way it should be ours to capture, pin down and use to our own ends.

Whichever way, we need to learn that we can’t have our cake and eat it too. The promotion of an ideal is not the same as shaming those who fail to achieve that, neither is it a judgement upon others’ morality, other than to note that scarce resources should not be spent on elusive and unlikely solutions that have come about as a result of a lifestyle choice, particularly when the condition does not cause an immediate and pressing threat to a person’s life, or impair their ability to go about their day to day life. The myriad of issues surrounding IVF is symptomatic of what results when sex and procreation are separated. IVF is simply a modern society’s attempt to find a solution for a self-inflicted problem. When are we going to join the dots?

	NEO on Alfie Evans – a year…
	John Chamberlin on And so the contagion is s…
	John Winlow on The Barbershop metaphor
	Michael Ozanne on Never again Charlie, Isaiah an…
	wendy walker on Is Rupa Huq selling out Sister…

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: