Just how Catholic is the Catholic Herald… How Faithless the Bishops?

From Gloria TV…

Damian Thompson, editor-in-chief of the Catholic Herald announced (Twitter, July 4) that “the new owners” and he “do not agree on the future direction of the company.”

The Catholic Herald is owned by the British businessman Rocco Forte, a non-practicing Catholic, and German born Princess Michael of Kent. Both are very much part of the British establishment.

To explain his stance, Thompson pointed to his interview with Raymond Arroyo last week on EWTN [see video below] where he criticised the forthcoming Amazonian Synod and called to “cancel this wretched ‘synod’.“

Thompson will do weekly podcasts for The Spectator, where he is an assistant editor, and be “free to tell you what I really think”.

His “first tweet as a free man” criticized Francis concerning the new Viganò revelations,

“It’s now obvious that Pope Francis is deeply implicated in terrible scandals. My concern isn’t theological: it’s the spectacle of a corrupt pope, something I never expected to see in my lifetime.”

Comment:

The Catholic Herald is often described (to me, at least) as the most orthodox of the current crop of Catholic newspapers.  In the above interview, Damian Thompson slices through the weakness of the UK Bishops in matters of pro-life and he is rightly outspoken about the forthcoming Amazon Synod of Bishops, offering concrete examples of major concern, not least the shocking justification of infanticide on “cultural” grounds by the author of the Synod’s working document, Austrian Bishop Erwin Kräutler.  Damian Thompson calls for the Amazon Synod to be cancelled.  Catholic Truth adds its voice to this call to cancel what is designed to cause huge scandal.  

A major weakness in the interview, however, is Damian Thompson’s analysis of the Bishops of Scotland…  He considers them, despite tending to be left wing… as, nevertheless,  “in many ways, quite strong and fearless”.  Oops!  We’ve missed that!  Must’ve been out for lunch that day!

I’ve emailed Raymond Arroyo to ask him not to seek the views of English commentators on our Bishops, because they do, invariably, think that the Scottish Bishops are sound;  this is mostly because of their occasional pro-life statements. When commentators abroad paint this misleading picture of our Bishops, it undermines our efforts to fight the crisis in the Church here in Scotland. I mean, providing safe spaces for LGBT pupils in Catholic schools can hardly be classed as “strong and fearless” – can it? 

Share your thoughts – are you still buying/reading the Catholic Herald.  If so, when, on this earth, will you learn!  

46 responses

  1. I will watch the video asap, but I must say I’ve never thought of Damian Thompson as being orthodox let alone traditional and there is a link to a previous CT blog on the subject showing his novus ordo credentials, underneath this latest post
    https://catholictruthblog.com/2016/04/05/confessions-of-an-ex-traddie-as-if/

    I remember a time when he was arguing for the then Archbishop Nichols to be given the red hat, LOL!

    It’s odd how some novus ordo Catholics like him do move someway towards seeing that there actually is a crisis. It takes a lot, though.

    Their pro-life reputation has always fooled the majority of Catholics and also non-Catholics into thinking that the Scottish Bishops are “hardliners” when they’re anything but.

    • Michaela,

      For a long time, Damian Thompson was very much on the fence in terms of criticising the modernist bishops – never mind a pope!

      H was dubbed a “traditionalist” by secular media outlets simply for welcoming an “end” (which didn’t come) to the Soho [“gay”] Masses in Westminster (they were merely moved to another church) but, as Miles Immaculatae points out below, people of every religion and none adhere to the natural moral law – it’s not a specifically “Catholic” belief that there is a natural order in morality and although the Catholic Church is the guardian of the moral law, charged with protecting and proclaiming it, the Church did not invent it, and so it is binding on everyone, peoples everywhere.

      Although the Scottish Bishops have spoken out on abortion issues (although less often, notice, since Papa Francis urged us not to “obsess” over it), when one of their number has ventured into the area of homosexuality and been slapped down by the secular media, they have quickly gone to ground. “Strong and fearless” does not describe them – remotely.

      • I saw The World Over that week, and immediately thought of you when I saw Raymond Arroyo interview Mr. Thompson.

        I wanted to email you but didn’t because it was past 1 a.m. on your side of the pond. 😉

    • Michaela,

      I agree with you and I remember the attitude of the Scottish Bishops when same-sex marriage was introduced in Scotland. Even though a majority of the population voted against it (over 60% – and there were two consultations, not just one) we still got it imposed and yet the Bishops said nothing. In fact, right in the middle of the same-sex marriage publicity, a high profile gay man, a solicitor, was allowed his funeral in a Glasgow parish church and the priest referred to his “partner” during the Mass. This couldn’t have been done without the approval of the archbishop. What makes Damian Thompson think they are “strong and fearless” beats me.

    • Miles Immaculata,

      Sometimes – mysteriously – a comment doesn’t appear right away. I find that if I refresh the page a couple of times and/or type “test” in the next box and submit that, the comment appears. I will later remove the “test”.

      In this case, your comment was lurking in a dark corner of my admin section – I released it but notice that your original comment has appeared, so I will now delete one them.

      Sorry for any confusion caused.

  2. There is a mistaken belief among many Novus Ordo Catholics that Catholics who express pro-life sentiments are somehow traditional Catholics. This is nonsense. Many Muslims and orthodox Jews are pro-life and they can hardly be considered traditional Catholics!

    Pro-life issues are not even Catholic issues. They are natural law issues, and every human is expected to abide by the natural law whether they are Catholic or not.

    I have heard various Catholics say that they would like an African pope, because apparently the African church is traditional. I do not believe it. The Catholic Church in Africa may take a traditional view on various moral issues, but other than that they are thoroughly modernist and they have not escaped the devestating consequences of the crisis in the Church.

    The same goes for Cardinal Burke. Just because he is publically outspoken on moral issues and says the traditional mass occassionally does not mean he is a traditional Catholic. He is what Christopher Ferrara describes as a neo-conservative Catholic. I actually believe that the neo-conservative Catholicism is a more insidious and dangerous form of modernism than the average run of the mill Novus Ordo type of Catholicism. Whereas any idiot can clearly see that Pope Francis is modernist, much less considered Pope John Paul II modernist.

    Homeopaths believe that their remedies are more efficacious the more diluted the ingredients. It’s the same with modernism. The modernists ensured that their heresies were diluted. And that’s how they tricked Catholics into believing them under the premise of false obedience. If their modernism had been overt from the onset then no one would have let them do what they did.

    When Catholics focus too much on moral issues it gives the appearance that Catholics are obsessed with sex and abortion . These are secondary issues. If the church focuses on the primary issues (the crisis in the Church, the destruction of the liturgy, and conciliar errors such as religious liberty and eccumenism) then the secondary issues will take care of themselves! If Russia were consecrated then legal abortion would end.

    • Miles Immaculatae,

      I wholly agree with the majority of your comment here – there are too many people who were next door to silent during the crisis in the Church who are now “experts” on the subject since the election of Pope Francis – usually because they express support for pro-life and/or the traditional Latin Mass (often in the same breath as they praise the novus ordo.) That is all very true.

      However, I would beware the danger of the false dichotomy.

      While you are correct to argue that pro-life issues are not specifically “Catholic” issues, in that they are moral truths binding on everyone, I would never consider them to be “secondary” issues. It is certainly true, as you imply, that if Catholics hold fast to the Faith, to Catholic teaching on religious and spiritual dogma, and to the ancient Mass, then they will be right-thinking on moral issues as well, but to attempt to separate Faith and Morals into “first and second class” issues might be misinterpreted and lead to confusion.

      I’ve often said that when the Faith goes, the Morals quickly follow – so I’m not arguing that there is no link between the two; if someone doubts, e.g. the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, there is much more likelihood that he/she will come to accept permissiveness in morality than the Catholic who adheres to Catholic dogma. But that is different from labelling morality as “secondary”. One unrepented mortal sin can take us to Hell, remember (and Our Lady said at Fatima that more souls go to Hell through sins of impurity – sexual immorality – than any other sin), so I suggest that we stick to the tried and tested road of believing and accepting all that the Church teaches – in both Faith AND Morals.

      You are correct, of course, in that Catholics are too quick to label someone “traditionalist” because they are pro-life, pro-marriage and the family. It’s a bit like recommending a doctor as the best in the country because he knows a bad cold when he sees one!

      • Yes, I agree with your clarifications. The Natural Law and Divine Revelation are of equal importance, because both come from God. I meant primary/secondary only in the sense that the two are linked and neglect of the first leads to neglect of the second, as you say.

        I am confident that a consequence of the consecration of Russia will be a renewed respect for the Natural Law in the wider culture.

        • Miles Immaculatae,

          It’s also true that people of non-Christian religions, and even some atheists and agnostics, hold to the moral law – they’re more for keeping the Ten Commandments that some Catholics, LOL!

          That maybe suggests that it is possible to live by the moral law without having the Catholic faith as your wellspring, but not possible to be a Catholic and flout the moral law. I hope you agree!

  3. Once again when I tried to play a video which you have posted I got no sound at all. I did manage to get it to post subtitles so I could read what was being said although I could not hear anything.
    All that aside I see that “The Remnant” on its website has posted a video which does play perfectly well and its Editor , Michael Matt, posted a little of Damian Thompsons explanation of why he was removed from The Catholic Herald. I see that he has taken umbrage at Pope Francis’s Amazon nonsense and called for it to be stopped. As Michael Matt proclaims “We must resist him to his face” There certainly is a growing call for faithful Catholics to show their opposition to the destruction of the Church which is going on through the actions of Pope Francis.

    • John,

      There is absolutely nothing I can do about the sound on your computer. I haven’t had any such complaint from anyone else and I can hear videos fine on my computer. Perhaps if you click on the word ‘YouTube’ on the video that will take you through to the video ON YouTube and that might make a difference. Whatever the problem, it’s nothing to do with this blog – sorry, can’t help.

      I paid a quick visit to The Remnant site and their video is also on YouTube.

      To my surprise, however, their short introductory piece reveals that Michael Matt is going to participate in an event in Japan, and makes positive reference to the alleged apparitions at Akita. We discussed Akita on our blog at a time when I, certainly, believed it had episcopal approval. Turns out that is not the case at all. The video which I posted there has now been taken down but if you read my “update” and then scroll to the comments, you will understand why I am very surprised that Michael Matt is giving credence to Akita.
      https://catholictruthblog.com/2016/02/20/akita-confirms-fatima-message/

      As for the “growing calls to show opposition to the destruction of the Church through the actions of Pope Francis” – perhaps if these same people now calling for “action” had been doing the same during the pontificates of Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI, instead of dismissing those of us who were calling for action, as “extremists”, the rot might have been stemmed and we’d never have heard of Pope Francis. The calls to action from those who were silent during the previous pontificates, or in fact praising Pope Francis’s immediate predecessors, ring a tad hollow in my ears, I’m afraid, although I do welcome them in a spirit of “better late, very late, than never.

  4. If you want to know how Catholic the Catholic Herald is, just look at the guests at the garden party, which include Cristina Odone and Mary Kenny – not exactly “traditional” Catholic women, writers or broadcasters.
    https://catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2019/07/08/the-catholic-herald-summer-party-in-pictures/

    To show the confusion in picture, the Herald has Cristina Odone (who married a divorced man and then set about attacking the Church for not allowing it) pictured with Fr Julian Large, who has a reputation for orthodoxy. Seeing them together is very confusing – both smiling, no problems.

    To answer the question in the blog intro – no, I haven’t read the Catholic Herald for many years now and only looked at it online just now, because I wanted to answer the question, LOL!

    I don’t think it’s “Catholic” or it would be reporting much more forcefully on this pope’s shenanigans.

    • Nicky,

      I thought I would check out the evidence for “how faithless the Bishops?” LOL!

      I remembered that the Archbishop of Glasgow was hounded in the press for linking early death in young homosexual men to homosexual activity – and then back-tracked. I remember being very disappointed at the time.
      https://clericalwhispers.blogspot.com/2012/07/church-apology-for-bishop-comments.html

      I don’t know what it would take to make the bishops just stick to Catholic teaching and morality.

      • Fidelis,

        I remembered that the Archbishop of Glasgow was hounded in the press for linking early death in young homosexual men to homosexual activity – and then back-tracked. I remember being very disappointed at the time.

        Yes I remember that too and was also disappointed with +Tartaglia.

        I remember the BBC Radio Scotland had the deceased mans partner on, weeping terribly, to say how monstrous +Tartaglia was and how his partner’s death was only due to pancreatitis, not linked to sexual conduct.

        Conveniently they did not mention that pancreatitis is heavily associated with HIV patients and their anti-viral medication.

        While we must not make assumptions, +Tartaglia knew the man in question personally and so likely knew his health status.

        I can understand why the Bishop did not want to cause further anguish for the deceased’s family and friends, but he then allowed both himself and Catholic teaching to be portrayed as cruel, in the face of people who were knowingly mis-representing the cause of the man’s death.

        • Gabriel Syme,

          I remember that too, and I also remember the funeral in St Aloysius of the young Glasgow solicitor who was also a gay man with a partner in attendance at the funeral. In that case, there were loads of VIPs in attendance at the Mass including Alex Salmond who was the First Minister of Scotland at the time and it was in the middle of the campaign for same sex marriage. Officially the Catholic Church was portrayed as opposing ss marriage but then this funeral, with the priest openly praising the deceased and his partner, the hypocrisy was mind-boggling. To the best of my recollection, only Catholic Truth pointed out the double standards. It wasn’t mentioned in any other publication.

  5. Damian Thompson is a modernist through and through. I can’t believe he made it onto the newly traditional EWTN, LOL!

  6. Is Thompson correct in saying that Church finances should be managed by an independent lay-led body? I am not sure about this. Since the laity are the main source of revenue for the Church, should they ultimately say how it is spent? Or would giving the laity control of the purse strings undermine the monarchical structure of authority in the Church as established by Christ? Surely the Pope should have ultimate control of the money and can’t be bossed around my lay people?

    • Miles Immaculatae,

      I’m not sure about this either. It’s not actually a “ministry” for priests, is it, managing finances, but these days allowing the laity to decide how money is spent could be highly dangerous. We’ve got lay people running the SCES, for example, and agreeing on safe spaces for LGBT pupils so I wouldn’t trust them not to fund a “Catholic Pride” march – seriously!

      When it comes to finances at Vatican level, I think it may be necessary to have a professional accountancy firm overseeing funding. That would probably be lay-led. There would definitely have to be a sound cleric overseeing how money is used so that it doesn’t go to immoral or anti-Catholic projects.

  7. I hope Damian Thompson is not going to become the latest faux-traditionalist distraction, no matter how correct he is on a small slice of the Catholic pie. I still remember his ridiculous Herald column several years ago, discussed here, in which he admitted his rather lavish appreciation of the Novus Ordo on purely sentimental grounds – e.g. the people were so welcoming, if I remember correctly.

    He also reveals his lack of depth in his criticism of Pope Francis as corrupt, rather than on theological grounds. I have news for you, DT: corruption on theological grounds paves the way for behavioral corruption.

    As for his characterization of the Scottish bishops as “quite strong and fearless, ” well, that fits in nicely with the numerous blessings and renewals of the Vatican II reforms that we have been allegedly experiencing for the past 50 years….

    • What you mention in regards to Catholics criticising Pope Francis on moral grounds but not theological is something I have noticed among traditionally minded but not quite traditional Catholics. Michael Voris, for example, who is a vociferous critic of the FSSPX, for a few years refused to criticise Pope Francis on theological grounds claiming it was pornographic. Yet he justified criticing Pope Francis on moral grounds following the McCarrick scandal.

      These people have got it the wrong way around. Many popes in history were extremely immoral, had mistresses etc., But at least they preserved the dogma of the faith. What’s worse, a debauch Pope or a heretical Pope? The latter surely?

      • Miles,

        “Many popes in history were extremely immoral, had mistresses etc., But at least they preserved the dogma of the faith.”

        Hadn’t thought of that, which tends to contradict “theological corruption ==> moral corruption.” But perhaps the debauched Popes had enough fear of God to avoid tampering with the Deposit of Faith. Or, they were just too busy with their mistresses to think about anything else….

        That’s the problem, I think, with Francis and his cabal (and with all leftists): they are revolutionaries who think they know better than God, and have whipped themselves into a messianic frenzy trying to establish an earthly utopia. Their symbol is the raised clenched fist.

        Utopia is what they claim on the surface, their adopted virtuous veneer. But if you read their fine print, every sentence starts with this: $$$.

        “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!”

  8. RCA Victor,

    I totally agree with you – and DT is not alone in preferring the NO for its superficial welcoming – no matter how grave the sin, come to Communion, seems to be the message.

    I know there are some NO priests who don’t think like that but they mostly keep their thoughts to themselves, unfortunately.

    Saying the Scottish bishops are quite strong and fearless is downright hilarious, knowing the facts as we do. It shows that we need to listen to EWTN with a careful ear, just like every other neo-conservative outlet. They’re really not 100%.

  9. I suppose “Catholic Herald” is as “catholic” as “gloria.tv” attributing to universal mess (do not confuse with the Mass) in questions of faith. Moreover, something that over-accentuates morals forgeting the Faith (i.e. a kind of impious moral dogmatism) – putting the 5th & 6th commandments in the place of the 1st one, smells me always of the post-conciliar neo-con stronghold striving to save (as we used to say it in Poland – relating to transformation of the Communist Party line) “wiseness of the stage” of the revolution of the glorious JPII’s 80’s, i.e. Escriba’s OD.

    • VRS,

      I thought Gloria TV was Catholic – much more so than the Catholic press in the UK, including the Herald. Why do you think it’s not?

      Sorry, but I don’t understand the end of your comment about “JPII’s 80’s i.e. Escribas OD” – what does that mean?

      • I used to write on that portal for 5 years. The censorship was worse than on mainstream sites and other practices (hiding texts without notice – they were making them private, removing texts without vulgarisms, removing popular texts of unwanted authors from the main site, blocking accounts with no possibility to delete it by the owner, clone accounts promoted by moderators promoting post-conciliar rubbish and ad personam attacks i.e. promoting on the top of the main site repeated posts that “lefebvrists” are schismatics and shall go to hell or that other users are paranoid/schizophrenic, bashing priests trying to be faithful to the traditional Mass, etc.) were unbelievable (complaints sent to English language administration were left unanswered). I noticed that the person that in fact destroyed the Polish language forum now started to occupy the English language main site. Some months ago after the account of my friend was blocked with no given reason and all my comments were being removed just after submission I decided to remove all my content (some hundreds essays and translations) to avoid the situation that somebody blocks the access to it and moved to wordpress. Beware of that heterodox site. There are many good-willed users there but also many manipulators.
        JP – John Paul II, OD – Opus Dei

          • No it never was. (I remember, apart from the aforesaid scandalous practices, plenty of neocatechumenal, Medjugorje and other false apparitions stuff uploaded by users that made its way to the front page without any problems. And many of my comments were removed e.g. because I dared to quote unconvenient sayings/documents of Pope John Paul II – no wonder when the guy declares him publicly “the Great” as pope Leo or Gregory, my texts were hidden or removed because they described, quoting sources, the background bargaining at the time of the Vatican II, in particular with Jewish organizations)

            • “The guy” – Polish site admin. Sorry – but because of technical problems a large part of my comment was lost when the site automatically refreshed on my tablet.
              In short – after all those years I have come to the conclusion that it is a false flag increasing the confusion among Catholics.
              The place where Tradition is tolerated only if it agrees with Medjugorje & other similar “apparitions”, neocatechumenal stuff and “Greatness” of post-conciliar popes and documents, and last but not least – local moderator with apparent, IMHO, mental problems.

            • VRS,

              Please do not go down the road of “the Jews are to blame for everything.” We don’t DO that here. The Jews are NOT to blame for everything. I decided not to edit that part out of your comment because this comment from me wouldn’t make sense if I did.

              Whoever the Vatican “bargained” with at the time of Vatican II, was ENTIRELY the fault of the cardinals and Pope at that time. Nobody else.

              So, let’s not blame any other group or individuals for Vatican II and its aftermath. I’m NOT for letting the true culprits off the hook. Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI, Popes JP II and Benedict XVI are ALL to blame for what is going on now – without their faithlessness we wouldn’t be stuck with Francis – the worst ever pope in the history of the Church.

              So, no more mention of “the Jews”. Not on this blog, please and thank you.

              PS, no I didn’t forget about Pope JP I – but he wasn’t around long enough to blame for anything!

              • As to your intervention in the discussion:
                1. With all due respect I have no clue what you are referring to. Upon what premise do you hold that I “blame Jews for everything”? Could you explain it, please?
                2. Could you also point put what part of my post you wanted to censor out, please? Because, again, I do not know what you are referring to.
                3. Only cardinals and popes are to blame? Nobody else? Quite a peculiar reasoning.
                4. “No more mention of the Jews” – I assume that you consider that word as tabu.
                No problem I will do as you wish – no comments or quoting of Scriptures, Church Fathers and Magisterium using that forbidden word. Best regards.

                • VRS,

                  My antenna highlighted your remark about “…bargaining at the time of the Vatican II, in particular with Jewish organizations” – and reminded me of the many people on here in the past peddling anti-Jewish propaganda of one kind or another and so I am very alert to the dangers of such trolling recurring. If I have misunderstood you, my apologies, but be assured, the term “Jew” is not banned – just any abuse of this forum to spread anti-Jewish propaganda.

                  We’ve had many conversations here in defence of the Jews and of Pope Pius XII in their regard, and we’ve also had entire conversations about where the blame lies for Vatican II and its aftermath, with not a mention of Jews. As, e.g. this discussion
                  https://catholictruthblog.com/2018/03/02/catholic-crisis-who-shoulders-most-blame-pope-paul-vi-or-pope-francis/

                  In the correct context, then, there is no prohibition on mentioning Jews, Church Fathers, Magisterium whatever, you-name-it. However, too many alleged, i.e. self-styled “traditionalists” are brainwashed with NWO propaganda and fail to see the difference between woods and trees. On here, we’re not so easily fooled.

                  Pope John XXIII called an unnecessary Council. Pope Paul VI called in six Protestant ministers to help concoct a new Mass – and the rest, as they say, is history. That’s all any of us needs to know.

                  • I do not understand how you can converse about the conciliar or post-conciliar period with “not a mention of Jews”, ignoring many facts such as negotiations in Strasbourg and NYC, or post-conciliar days of rabinic judaism in churches, or one peculiar problem of Benedict XVI when he declared that the Traditional Mass has not been abolished – i.e. changing of one small Good Friday prayer, etc.
                    If we discuss the Vatican II we should consider all the facts / factors including the pressure of circles outside the Church (not only Protestants which you rightly name or Commies – cf. unfamous talks in Metz) where J. Isaac, A. J. Heschel, M. Tannenbaum and others played an important role. Not to mention “insiders” cooperating with outsiders such as G. Baum or M. Martin (aka M. Serafian).
                    It is just history not a “propaganda”. Relations with rabinic judaism and Jews played also a vital role during the apogee of the post-conciliar spring i.e. the pontificate of John Paul II (I think I don’t have to recall his major gestures such as recognising of the Jewish state de jure, visiting the Synagogue in Rome, many speeches, documents and meetings, promotion of days of judaism in churches – first in Italy, then in Poland, Chanukah candle in Vatican, etc.).

                    The case of Pius XII, in my opinion, has nothing to do with the above aspect of the conciliar revolution – he attributed to the conversion of rabbi I. Zolli while John Paul II in the spirit of Assisi and of developement of Nostra Aetate carefully avoided to cause such missionary effects
                    .
                    I do not understand also how your mentioning of “brainwashing with NWO propaganda” relates to the subject (i.e. history of the conciliar revolution).

                    • VRS,

                      I can’t understand why you want to focus on the things you list – churches promote Islam and Catholic schools teach all about their Feast days as well as Jewish ones, it’s the focus on Jews which is rather distasteful. Lots of people may have contributed to Vatican II – we know the Orthodox did and the 6 :Protestant minsters, so why single out the Jews? It just adds to the perception that Catholics are anti-Semitic.

                      Anyway, I think we’re well off topic since we’re supposed to be discussing the Catholic Herald and faithless bishops! A long way from anything the Jews have ever done, LOL!

                      I apologise, Editor, if this is continuing the conversation about Jews against your will, and I won’t be offended if you delete my post.

                    • Dear Madam, I do not want to continue the off-topic but I shall try to answer shortly and honestly. I was asked above about another site and wrote about censorship there – giving some examples – one of examples related to my texts about the Vatican II context – talks with Jewish organisations. Pure historical facts – crd. Bea, fr. Willebrands and so on.

                      As no of texts about – you named it – “Orthodox” or Protestants I posted there were censored – it’s quite obvious I could not have given the example you wished. And I really do not know what problem you have with Jews. [Ed: none, which is why I don’t single them out. I live in Glasgow. I’m more bothered about the bigotry against Catholics – with not a Jew in sight…) In history of the Church there are relations with Protestants, eastern schismatics, islam and with… judaism. And a curious thing – when you mention the last one even once, suddenly the storm starts. You write about a perception of anti-semitism (why not about a perception of anti-protestantism or anti-semitism with respect to islamic Arabs – I wonder). I will tell you – when I’m called by neo-pagans a “Jew-worshipper” and on the other side, other people try to impute me out of nowwhere “anti-semitism”, I know I’m just Catholic. For whom no strange rules of NewSpeak matter, only the Truth. Kind regards.

                      PS It’s my last comment on the matter because I do not want to spam the forum. [Ed: thank you. Much appreciated.]

                    • VRS,

                      I forgot to say that I agree about the Good Friday prayer but that’s not the fault of the Jews – that’s the fault of the hierarchy who cave in to every criticism, no matter where it comes from. If the Jews were asked for their contribution to Vatican II, that’s not their fault either.

                      It’s the painting of the Jews as the bad guys, when the real bad guys are the popes who caused all this confusion in the first place, that I find particularly annoying.

                      Again, editor, please feel free to delete this if you feel I’m keeping the conversation going.

                    • VRS and Josephine,

                      I will leave your comments this time but all future off topic posts will be deleted the minute I see them.

                    • VRS

                      Since that is your stated final comment on the subject, underlining the fact that we are at cross purposes, I’ll leave it but any more and I will delete the lot.

                      That such off topic interventions invariably cause us to be at cross purposes is the reason why I try to get bloggers to stick to the topic and not go off at a tangent. In the proper context, when a thread topic is provided, you can give whatever information you believe is pertinent about Jews, Muslims, Orthodox, etc if that information fits in with the topic. When, however, you (or anyone else) take us off topic, it is extremely irritating. We’ve had blogs about the Orange marches in Scotland and Northern Ireland, for example, and frank discussion has taken place. But if someone comes onto a topic thread which has nothing to do with the Orange Order and takes us off in the “bigotry” direction, that’s irritating in the extreme. No use the culprits screaming “censorship” – they need to stick to the given topic or go off and start their own blankety blank blog.

                      Now, I AM annoyed at this string of comments which are entirely nothing to do with the Catholic Herald and so, yet again, the useless Catholic press gets off the hook. As do the faithless bishops. Goodness, even when I provide a dual topic, we still get innovators adding in their tuppence-worth!

                      So, this now ends that part of the conversation which is off topic. Please do NOT respond to this or I’ll wipe out the entire conversation. I’m like that. Naughty. But not violent. Not really…

    • I have always felt that Escriba (his real name, as you were careful to write it) and the Escribists are far more dangerous than outright and overt modernists. They decieve well meaning Catholics by giving the appearance of tradition. But they are modernist. Whereas most well meaning Catholics can easily discern that Pope Francis is modernist.

      Escribism is a synthesis of early 20th century Spanish bourgeoisie authoritarianism and post-Concilliar modernism. I knew an Opus Dei priest, my spiritual director for three years, and I know personally that this kind of Catholicism is profoundly psychologically dangerous. John Paul II prevented Escriba’s former personal friends from testifying during the cause for his canonisation, because they were going speak of his evil character. But John Paul II was determined to canonise Escriba because he was a bulwark of the modernist neo-conservative Catholicism that JPII desired to promote.

      • In my country OD try to take over the youth eager for Tradition, organising “tradi” pilgrimages and retreats. Unfortunately, many people are not watchful enough to see the shadow of the Marquis behind the high altar prepared for the solemn Mass.

      • Miles Immaculatae,

        Can you give a reliable source for what you say about Escriba’s canonisation because that is a shocker. If Pope JP II really thought he was worthy of canonisation then he shouldn’t have feared any evidence suggesting he was evil. That would have been able to be corrected surely.

        Saying that, it was JP II who did away with the Devil’s Advocate for canonisations so maybe he did that to serve his own ends in such cases, which really would be totally shocking.

Leave a Reply to editor Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: