Celibacy under attack again: this time from new Vatican Secretary of State…

Celibacy under attack again: this time from new Vatican Secretary of State…

Celibacy under attack again: this time from new Vatican Secretary of State...

Archbishop Pietro Parolin, the new Secretary of State of the Vatican, made some surprisingly frank remarks about priestly celibacy that may indicate a new openness to “the democratic spirit of the times.” Pope Francis’ plans to reform the Vatican and “shake up the church” have received a lot of attention, but he has not yet publicly addressed the issue of mandatory celibacy for priests.

Parolin said in an interview with Venezuelan newspaper El Universal that the tradition of priestly celibacy is not dogma, or a law of divine origin, and is therefore open to discussion. He went on to note that while the church is not a democratic institution, it needs to “reflect the democratic spirit of the times and adopt a collegial way of governing.”

Click on the photo of Archbishop Parolin to read the entire article.

Comments (153)

  • sixupman

    “By their fruits [delete fruits] appointments shall you know them”! The “Bishop of Rome” appears to be intent upon an acceleration of the flight from the ‘Traditions’ of Mother Church, to encompass every Modernist ideology imaginable. ++++Francis, it appears, is intent upon making the errors his Vatican II predecessors as but flea-bites. ‘Obedience’ ham-strings is, but to what? Every day that passes confirms the actions of Msgr. Lefebvre. In Italy, there are diocesan bishops and clergy and their SSPX confreres in a two-way reaching-out to one-another, such alliances are going to become essential in the protection of ‘real’ Catholicism.

    September 11, 2013 at 11:10 am
    • Lily


      “++++Francis, it appears, is intent upon making the errors his Vatican II predecessors as but flea-bites”

      That’s what it’s beginning to look like. Pope Francis is fast becoming the very worst of the post-Vatican II popes. It’s really worrying. This major appointment of Secretary of State is already disastrous, reading that report. Maybe the celibacy rule will be disposed of as the march towards the final chastisement continues fast and furious. I wouldn’t be surprised.

      September 11, 2013 at 10:37 pm
  • catholicconvert1

    I’d like to ask Archbishop Parolin two questions: does the Bible say celibacy is ok and was Jesus democratic? When you have democracy in religion you get Protestantism, and as we see from that you get all sorts happening, i.e gay marriage, women priests, because conggregants don’t understand theology. Obviously there are occasions when celibacy is dispensed with such as with the Ordinariate or the Eastern Rites.

    I believe celibacy is divinely ordained because Our Lord glorified it and lived it. It’s also supported by St. Paul. See- Luke 18:28-30, Matt. 19:27-30, Ephesians 5:25-33, Revelation 21:9, Mark 2:19-20, Matt. 9:14-15, Numbers 1:48-53, 1 Corinthians 7:7-8.

    Wayward people use the abuse scandal as an excuse for ending celibacy, when in fact it was a homosexual problem. Just look at the stats. They show the majority of cases were between a man and a younger boy. No wonder people are so confused when Church leaders come out with this, and no wonder the SSPX look like nutters. If I wanted relativist crap I would have stayed with the CofE.

    As I repeatedly say, maybe Pope Francis was a mistake? At least with +Thorne, +Ranjith or +Burke what you see is what you get, and you know what they believe. Benedict XVI should have waited until Bergoglio and his aging allies lost their voting rights to resign.

    Nuff said!!!

    September 11, 2013 at 1:47 pm
    • gabriel syme

      Wayward people use the abuse scandal as an excuse for ending celibacy, when in fact it was a homosexual problem. Just look at the stats. They show the majority of cases were between a man and a younger boy.

      Thats right, ~90% of victims were sexually mature teenage boys.

      Yet still some people vehemently deny the involvement of homosexuality, however the evidence is overpowering:

      The readers of Uk homosexual mens magazine “Attitude” have just voted a teenage boy (19 year old Tom Daley) “sexiest man in the world”.

      Of course – who else, other than homosexual men, find teenage boys sexually attractive?

      September 11, 2013 at 3:36 pm
      • Constantine the Great

        “Attitude” have just voted a teenage boy (19 year old Tom Daley) “sexiest man in the world”.

        I imagine Cardinal O’Brien will approve.

        September 11, 2013 at 10:15 pm
      • Whistleblower

        Constantine ,

        How did you manage celibacy in seminary?

        September 11, 2013 at 10:29 pm
  • catholicconvert1

    Like Father Gabriele Amorth said, it’s all part of the Satanic influence in the Vatican, and I personally believe the Devil has infected the Vatican from it’s highest level. I’m going to watch ‘The Exorcist’ now, so I know what to do when the time comes. I’ve yet to find a layperson who is against celibacy or in favour of women Priests. There is one woman but she never goes to Mass, but constantly pontificates about the Church’s opposition to women Priests and gay rights. I look forward to the day when they receive their just punishment.

    September 11, 2013 at 1:57 pm
  • gabriel syme

    He went on to note that while the church is not a democratic institution, it needs to “reflect the democratic spirit of the times and adopt a collegial way of governing.”

    I dont like this quote above one bit.

    He essentially says two polar opposite things at once, which I understand is the hallmark of the modernist.

    Bishops punting the rubbish of collegiality like this remind me of the elderly ladies who dominate many novus ordo parishes and who constantly seek to boost their own profile and involve themselves more and more in the liturgy*.

    (*The aim is to glorify themselves, nothing else; this is just as per the problems the then Cardinal Ratzinger identified with the novus ordo. That, so many times, it seems that the comunity is simply celebrating itself, not worshipping God).

    As for the celibacy comments – theres nothing new in that, but of course the Church wont change. To raise money, only to spent it all maintaing your own institution, (ie spend it on priests families), is pointless and would reduce the Church to the status of Protestantism.

    September 11, 2013 at 3:20 pm
  • catholicconvert1

    Gabriel Syme

    Of course you’ll have heard of the Paedophile Party in the Netherlands, that advocated porn on daytime TV or the abolition of the age of consent? Also, Peter Tatchell, the leading ‘queer’ activist has said (and I quote) ‘I’ve known many TEN YEAR OLDS who have sex with older men and it gave them a feeling of great joy’. Sick or what. Then he has the audacity to demand the age of consent to be lowered to 12. Then gay adoption (where children have been raped by adoptive parents)- shouldn’t alarm bells ring?

    Needless to say I wish you’d stop trashing the Novus Ordo, or at least aspects of Vatican II. If it wasn’t for the Vernacular in certain parts of the world, i.e Africa then the growth wouldn’t have been as phenomenal, and it took much stress from Priests, by giving laity a role in finance and Parish administration.

    Also, my support for celibacy isn’t based on mercenary arguments as in your last paragraph, it’s not about money, it’s about what Jesus wanted, as seen in the Bible quotes.


    September 11, 2013 at 5:28 pm
    • editor

      Catholic Convert,

      Peter Tatchell doesn’t just have the audacity to demand the age of consent to be lowered to twelve, he had the audacity to demand that Pope Benedict be arrested on arrival in the UK when he visited here a few years back, on grounds that he was responsible for sexual abuse of minors by priests. If he had gotten his way and the age of consent lowered, those same priests wouldn’t have been guilty of anything! What an idiot.

      Gabriel Syme hasn’t “trashed” the novus ordo – as far as I know, he still attends it.

      Your assertion about the vernacular being a cause of the alleged growth of the Church in Africa is mere speculation. There are a lot of question marks over the alleged growth there, which I do not have time to detail right now. But, trust me, the vernacular Mass is not a cause for rejoicing anywhere in the world – including Africa.

      September 11, 2013 at 6:06 pm
    • gabriel syme

      Hi there,

      Needless to say I wish you’d stop trashing the Novus Ordo, or at least aspects of Vatican II. If it wasn’t for the Vernacular in certain parts of the world, i.e Africa then the growth wouldn’t have been as phenomenal, and it took much stress from Priests, by giving laity a role in finance and Parish administration.

      Me? You were referring to the Novus Ordeal on another thread! 😛

      My own opinion is that the Novus Ordo can be reverent in theory, but in practice it is not. In practice, it typically lacks any reverence or sense of the sacred and is frequently disturbed by personal conversations and mobile phones being allowed to ring out.

      The issues with the Novus Ordo was brought home to me when I visited three different masses in short succession – and found they were all markedly different from one another. This is not Catholic. Catholicism is meant to be Universality – when the mass is different in every parish, it is not Universal.

      I disagree that growth is down to vernacular worship. With Latin, growth in Africa would have been at least as strong. Don’t forget it was Latin which sustained the Church up until the Vatican II. For the best comparison of Latin versus Vernacular, look to Europe, the traditional heartland of the Church.

      Vatican II novelties such as parish councils are all rubbish. I know – I have served on a parish council. When it was started up, it was so popular that elections had to be held. Since then, now everyone knows what its like, they cant get people to join it for love nor money (bar the same band of elderly ladies who dominate most vernacular parishes, as said).

      Its just a talking shop, nothing more. No important decisions were taken by the Council, no worthwhile topics were debated by the Council, its just a talking shop and a means for people to while away their time. The priest was still #1 and the boss, the meetings just served as an outlet for him to vent about matters – the lay people have no real input. The most useful thing I did at the meetings was drink coffee and take the minutes.

      I actually think the Priests will face increased stress due to these things, given they are now obliged to spend so much of their time indulging such rubbish, instead of just ‘getting on with it’.

      my support for celibacy isn’t based on mercenary arguments as in your last paragraph, it’s not about money, it’s about what Jesus wanted, as seen in the Bible quotes.

      What bible quotes support clerical celibacy, ‘scuse my ignorance?

      I don’t think the argument I made is “mercenary” – its just purely practical – obviously so.

      I think it’s a damn good argument myself! 🙂 Especially when dealing with secular critics who will not be impressed by arguments refering to our Lord, whom they do not personally believe in.

      September 12, 2013 at 3:27 pm
  • catholicconvert1


    I remember that Tatchell and his moronic cohorts demanded the arrest of His Holiness. Along with the plagiarist Johann Hari and ‘theology expert’ Richard Dawkins. The latter denounced the Church because Hitler and Mussolini were members and were not excommunicated- the usual trash. These people are like stuck records.

    Please tell me, why is ‘Johann’ a spelling of John that is peculiar to Scotland. Isn’t it also a woman’s name?

    As for the Vernacular Mass, it is evidence of growth because in 1900 there were 2million Catholics in Africa and around 200million today, most of this has been ‘natively’ sustained. Tell me of those ‘question marks’ if you please. http://cvcomment.org/2013/03/04/challenging-the-myth-of-catholic-decline/

    September 11, 2013 at 6:41 pm
    • gabriel syme

      Yes, Johan Hari is an unpleasant and vitriolic type, thats for sure. Like so many unrepentant homosexuals, he used the occasion of the 2010 Papal Visit as a means to vent his inner conflict and self-loathing, by directing it at Catholics – as though we are/were responsible for all his troubles.

      Similar tone and language used toward other social groups (esepcially another minority group) would undoubtedly have been conisdered “hate speech”.

      To give you an idea, such was the rhetotic in the run up to the visit, that I considered cancelling my day out to Bellahouston Park with my Mother – I honestly thought there was a half-decent chance of some kind of confrontation or incident taking place, between pilgrim Catholics and the very many groups who revealed themselves as being full of hatred for we Christians – groups such as homosexual perverts, heretics and the self-regarding Godless.

      Anyway – Haris complete fall from grace, following the visit, was simply too good to be true. He was shown up as a liar, a fraud and a pervert. I.e. shown up for what he is.

      I know Christians are not supposed to enjoy the notion of vengence, but I did rather enjoy the daily news stories highlighting the true nature of this former left wing “golden boy” and the standard of his personal conduct.

      September 12, 2013 at 3:43 pm
  • Nicky


    That link you gave is to Catholic Voices – a group of dissenters.

    This link is to the New York Times and gives some reasons why there is an explosion of Catholicism in Africa

    A lot of it is to do with the Church providing welfare services. Nowhere, does it mention the vernacular Mass and the only mention of services is that it gives people a break from everyday life and stresses because it provides a peaceful environment. I know from priests that the sermons at the Mass in Africa can last for hours and that the people treat it as a social event, so I am not sure that is something to be welcomed or would be the reason for the conversions.

    September 11, 2013 at 7:17 pm
  • sixupman

    ‘Catholic Convert’:
    CVC and spurious statistics – population of Africa and life expectancy compared with 1900 and 2013? Pre-Vatican II the TLM was Celebrated, now it could well be a syncretistic hybrid NOM including semi-voodoo and naturalistic elements, with which Africa is riven.

    September 11, 2013 at 7:37 pm
  • catholicconvert1

    Nicky, Sixupman,

    Regardless of whether CV are a group of dissenters, the statistics are true. I know many African Catholics and I can tell you that they are certain and steadfast in their faith, regardless of what the Church provides for them in terms of social services. I also doubt the syncretism of voodoo etc, as the Pope ordered the African Church particularly in Benin, to rid the influence of voodoo in their society. Parts of Africa used the vernacular long before Vatican II, especially in Nigeria and the Congo.

    September 11, 2013 at 8:59 pm
    • scottish priest

      I would agree my experience of catholic liturgies in Africa is deeply reverential and often taking so long for very good reasons. The social aspect is only because people have been praying for so long and have in many cases travelled long distances and will have a supper after Mass etc.. The influence of voodoo and witchcraft is massive in this culture and the long Masses are connected to praying it out.
      as for catholic Voices being dissenters – Can only say as a regular listener the theology and biblical analysis is usually spot on and the only issue was the poor coverage of the traditional Mass etc.. The high salaries are typical of the culture in America with religion, its shocking to us in the UK but thats how they do it there that does not make al that they do bad – Unless there was some other issue I was not aware of.

      September 13, 2013 at 8:43 am
  • chardom

    Think it might just be possible that Someone on this God Forsaken blog actually has something positive to say. I’d even accept a an intelligent comment from a woman if such a thing was possible.

    September 11, 2013 at 9:19 pm
    • Lily


      What a strange comment. This “God Forsaken blog” has been praised to me by many people who think it’s the best Catholic blog there is for quality of comments, charity and humour.

      What do you mean by saying something “positive”?

      As a woman I hope my comment is “intelligent” enough for you.

      September 11, 2013 at 10:33 pm
      • chardom

        The only people who ‘praise’ this blog Lily are the people who write on it in the main and self praise is no praise.’ Quality of comments’ are generally things which others have written or stated in the past; very little in this blog is original, independent thought and original argument is non existent. The blog is well known for its lack of charity towards those who have a different view, even to the extent of removing posts which the editor (a woman ) in her (lack of ) wisdom considers to be contrary to her opinion.
        And of course the total homophobic ranting which frequently occurs at some point on all the various threads are a prime example of bigots misusing the Scriptures to hide behind their prejudice which in some cases verges on illegal let alone immoral comments and abuse.
        ‘Humour’ is nothing more than sarcasm, the lowest type of humour.
        In the last few months of dipping in and out of this so called Catholic Truth blog I have found nothing to encourage myself or others to maintain an interest or desire to follow the Catholic Faith in any way shape or form.
        Comments from practically all the contributors are lacking overall in intelligence charity and true academic rigour or discipline. I would try to open up your circle of friends to include some who will be honest in telling You what Catholics really think of this so called blog It’s editor and contributors most of whom have nothing better to do with their time.
        If as You claim You are a woman with ‘intelligence’ You will review Your opinion accordingly. Although I don’t hold out much hope for that happening

        September 14, 2013 at 11:01 pm
      • Lily


        “The only people who ‘praise’ this blog Lily are the people who write on it in the main and self praise is no praise”

        That is not true. I know quite a few people who don’t write on this blog but who use it as a learning resource.

        You are also not being truthful about the editor taking down posts she disagrees with. The opposite is true as I’ve watched her being castigated for leaving up comments that other bloggers thought should be removed.

        Why are you saying these things when they are obviously false?

        September 15, 2013 at 1:45 pm
      • Lily

        “And of course the total homophobic ranting which frequently occurs at some point on all the various threads are a prime example of bigots misusing the Scriptures to hide behind their prejudice which in some cases verges on illegal let alone immoral comments and abuse.”

        I take it that you are in favour of homosexuality because “homophobic” is the word used by those who think homosexual activity is morally OK.

        That explains your dislike of this blog which sticks by Catholic teaching on this and everything else. Only someone who approves of homosexuality would see that as “ranting.”

        September 15, 2013 at 1:52 pm
      • Lily

        “‘Humour’ is nothing more than sarcasm, the lowest type of humour.
        In the last few months of dipping in and out of this so called Catholic Truth blog I have found nothing to encourage myself or others to maintain an interest or desire to follow the Catholic Faith in any way shape or form”

        That’s terrible. I find the blog helps me to follow my faith and stops me losing faith when each new scandal comes. You are prejudiced for some reason, probably because you think homosexuality is OK.

        I will not review my opinion of this blog but my opinion of your is one of disappointment.

        September 15, 2013 at 1:56 pm
      • editor


        “…very little in this blog is original, independent thought and original argument is non existent.”

        Well, I haven’t noticed you contributing anything original, that’s for sure. In fact, Chardom, there really isn’t any such thing as an “original thought” – read the autobiography of St Therese of Lisieux for more on this, if prayerful reflection doesn’t shine a light on the reason for that for you.

        “The blog is well known for its lack of charity towards those who have a different view, even to the extent of removing posts which the editor (a woman ) in her (lack of ) wisdom considers to be contrary to her opinion.”

        Nonsense. This is one of the few un-moderated sites in the blogosphere. I was even reluctant to change the settings, as WordPress Support advised, in order to help fix the log in problems we were experiencing, by moderating all first comments. I now do that, but only on the advice of WordPress Support. I’m more often criticised for allowing too much freedom to critics – especially atheists who have different views from me big time. So that’s a joke of a criticism for starters.

        “Comments from practically all the contributors are lacking overall in intelligence charity and true academic rigour or discipline”

        Absolute tosh. The priest who originally encouraged me to launch the blog, couldn’t praise it enough, arguing that it was the “best Catholic blog out there” arguing the very opposite of your criticisms. When I pointed out that we didn’t have nearly the same volume of comments that there are on certain other well known, very popular sites, he expressed the view that they may have hundreds of comments but our strength lies in the quality of the input, not quantity.

        You appear to be one of those people with a fixation on “editor” and it really does make me wonder. I mean, if I detested someone the way you and your ilk detest me, I’d avoid having anything to do with me at all. Big time. I seldom visit other blogs, usually only when someone kindly sends me a link to a particular discussion, at which times I usually try to contribute something. However, it never even crosses my mind to address (let alone insult) the administrator(s). Doesn’t cross my mind. So, I’m truly puzzled (and I suppose I should be flattered) that I matter so much to you that you feel moved offer your opinion about how bad a person I am. Allow me to thank you, as I have thanked others before you, for sharing your views about my character (or lack of it). But don’t waste your time. There’s nothing you could say about me that is …er… original. It’s all been said before. Just pray for me. Preferably to St Jude.

        September 15, 2013 at 4:09 pm
    • Miles Immaculatae

      There’s nothing intelligent about sexism, Chardom. And there’s nothing positive about misogyny.

      September 11, 2013 at 11:12 pm
  • Miles Immaculatae

    Africa has seen its own unique brand of liturgical experimentation. Heard of the Zaire Use? Well, it’s a real mischling of a liturgy. I believe the word is ‘incultration’… a purely conciliar concept.

    A beautiful example of true African liturgy is the sung Mass setting Missa Luba (check it out on YouTube). This dates from 1958. It draws on the Congolese folk music tradition and was composed under the direction of a Belgian Franciscan.

    Here we have an example of a vernacular musical heritage incorporated into the Mass without any compromise of the integrity of the Sacred Liturgy.

    September 11, 2013 at 9:58 pm
    • Miles Immaculatae

      Before any know-it-alls denounce the music I have described above as heretical because it has drums in it, please remember this is the record version. It needn’t have drums in Church the same way a Palestrina or Mozart Mass wouldn’t be accompanied by orchestra in Church.

      September 11, 2013 at 10:04 pm
  • scottish priest

    Inculturation is not a a conciliar concept the Church and bible history will show us clearly that drums were used throughout the scriptures for temple worship as stringed instruments that clearly evolved into GUITARS the Latin ” CIATHARA” found in the Mass of ages is clearly the root of guitar today. Now whether they are used in the liturgy is another question but you have to wrestle with the fact that Lyres harps and drums and yes even bagpipes were found in the OT liturgy and indeed the Chaldean liturgy perhaps the oldest we have suggests a form of guitar was present – you still don’t get KumBa Ya or gifts of bread and wine (notice the 3rd verse heresy as nothing goes through the Father it goes TO the FAther, as all worship does), but the guitar and drum were there -King DAvid wrote around 70 of the psalms and played the harp- the Miserere (ps50) was originally done on a guitar type instrument.

    The guitar type instrument was part of the sacred liturgy long before a Church organ appeared – I’d suggest we need to look carefully at the type of music used in NO and carefully choose music (and its out there), that is congruent with the sacred liturgy – agreed some of it is less than salutary and would never be suitable for the Old Rite but it does have historical precedent and a certain beauty when done properly

    September 12, 2013 at 8:13 am
    • editor

      Here’s Pope Piux X on the subject of church music

      And here’s Pope Benedict on the same subject, except he is clearly a man who believes in using 22 words when only 2 are required. He also quotes Ghandi towards the end of the following address

      Scottish Priest,

      I’m surprised that you haven’t commented on the report on the Vatican Secretary of State – I sincerely hope you’re not planning to look for a wife? She’d never agree to our meetings for tea and cakes – think, think, think, Father. And when you’ve done that, think again!

      September 12, 2013 at 10:03 am
      • scottish priest

        I did mean to comment on that in fact it was part of a longer post that I did not finish. Celibacy is what defines me as a priest (in some way). When seen in context and in relation to the Bridegroom who lays down His life for His bride the priest is to follow the master in this regard. He is to lay down his life for the Church in the same way. Celibacy is such a sign of contradiction tot eh world that it would folly to abandon n it – that and there has not been a stampede at my door asking me to marry.. however, even if it were “optional” it would be making the priesthood protestant and sterile and despite the issues it brings: poor training in the celibate life; empowered priests who know how to speak into eh lives of young men and teach them virtues that need to be learned in seminary; priests ordained to young at 25 – I’d make the entry age 25 it takes time for us men to mature. Celibacy is a beautiful gift to the Church. I’d say if you allow married priests you need to reconsider women priests. Only a man can lay down his life for his bride a woman cannot lay down her life for the Church – a female image. Only a man can do this otherwise you get spiritual lesbianism. The priest must be a man must be celibate (Anglican converts being the exception ), Jesus was a man a priest who died for His bride the Church. the priest must be a man who lays down his life (celibacy) for his bride the Church. To take celibacy out to me would take my purpose of helping souls get to heaven away – sacrifice (celibacy) must have a purpose and an outcome. This was why Pope Benedict suggested those with certain inclinations could not become priests

        September 13, 2013 at 8:56 am
    • Whistleblower

      Haven’t you used Protestant worship songs?

      September 12, 2013 at 10:04 am
      • Whistleblower

        Scottish Priest,

        That’s not supposed to be as direct as it sounds. I’ve been to many Novus Ordeal masses and I’ve lost count of the number of Protestant hymns I’ve heard.

        September 12, 2013 at 11:37 am
      • Miles Immaculatae

        At one of my old parishes, in one of the happy-clappy songs they frequently sang, In Christ Alone, the lyrics articulated a strongly Calvinist theology.

        September 12, 2013 at 11:48 am
    • Miles Immaculatae

      One of my old acquaintances used the points you make above to argue the legitimacy of using guitars in Mass.

      My response: There is a big difference between ancient primitive string instruments and the steel string acoustic guitars which are used in modern folk and popular music.

      Not many of us have the chance to hear Catholic organ repertory in Scotland, but those familiar with the instrument will understand that the reason we use organs is that the timbre of this instrument imitates the colour and sacred character of the human voice. The sound of air pumped through enormous metal pipes sounds ethereal, mysterious. It invokes a sense of the heavenly music.

      Here is my little poetic reflection on the organ: The mechanism of air which it uses resembles the Holy Ghost, the Sacred Wind, which sings the praises of the Eternal Father on our behalf. When the pipe of an organ is sounded it ‘speaks’. This is the term that organists themselves use.

      Guitars on the other hand sound positively secular. They exacerbate the anthropocentricity of the modern disintegrated liturgy.

      One of the things the criminal Protestant vandals did in Britain and Ireland was to rip out the ‘popish’ organs from the Churches.

      Gregorian chant wasn’t the norm for much of Church History. Interestingly, it had a revival under the papacy of Pius X. Previous congregations were use to extravagant Mass settings by Schubert, Mozart, Palestrina etc.. I used to hear this at the Manchester Oratory when I visited my family there. I have gone completely off it now. I find it vulgar. I much prefer the MIssa de Angelis. I am happy the days when orchestras were present in chapels of the royal courts in Europe are over. Although the combination of trumpets and cymbals (also biblical instruments) with the organ can sound splendid and regal. I have heard some sacred music in this arrangement: James MacMillan wrote a papal processional for Benedict XVI’s Mass in Westminster Cathedral which was stunning.

      September 12, 2013 at 12:17 pm
    • Henry

      I stumbled onto this site and this comments section. Kneeling vs standing in receipt of the Eucharist? Appropriateness of guitars in Mass? Maligning the Pope when a Vatican rep dares state that the celibacy dogma vs tradition/discipline issue is fair for discussion. Assertion of one’s intent to disobey the pope due his failure to “obey the eternal truth.” The mental gymnastics in managing to somehow turn the horrible and inexcusable pedophilia scandal into an attack on homosexuality. It’s all in these comments.

      Opinions are fair game. But it is sad to see so much anger, frustration and perceived victimization. We have a handful at our Church, always the teacher, never the student, ready to attack anyone that does not “understand,” always upset about something that everyone is doing wrong; yet when finally put to task, they usually cannot agree themselves. I listened last month to a vehement debate led by intelligent, degreed, Catholics about the travesty of liberalization in permitting girl altar servers and the necessity that our parish show leadership in curing this wrong. Do you really think if Jesus came back today he would be keeping score on these matters?

      As for Editor’s advice to the Scottish priest — advice he gave in a very patronizing and belittling manner – I suggest he heed such advice himself (we all should). Think, think, think and then think again.Then take a breath, go to Mass at the simplest, least pretentious church you can find and try to tune out the noise (not just the music and guitars, but also worrying about getting to kneel when receiving communion, sighing at the sight of a girl altar server, getting upset with a perceived mistakes in proper liturgical form). Did you receive the body and blood of Christ or not? If you did, the rest is just noise. Sorry for the rant, but I am very weary of time and energy invested in these kind of issues, true reconciliation seems hard to come by these days (or even discussed at your average parish).

      September 12, 2013 at 4:58 pm
      • editor


        I don’t have time right now to address the Church issues in your comment, but I just wish to assure you that I have the highest respect for Scottish Priest. He knows that my comment was meant in a light-hearted way, a touch of humour, not at all in a patronizing or belittling manner. I’ll be meeting him for tea and cakes any day now, so I’d soon be told off otherwise!

        Oh and editor is a “she” – just for the record.

        September 12, 2013 at 6:16 pm
      • scottish priest

        I am not sure which part of my reflection was patronizing etc..?If anything I was giving a broader picture with regard to music in the liturgy. I was merely pointing out that there are problems with only a Church organ. The document in 1903 Ed quotes was in response to Opera creeping into Church music, the piano and wind instruments were forbidden. Pope Benedict laments for sure about the need for suitable and appropriate music that allows music to worship God and not the gathered community. This is a problem both in the old and the new rite where snobbery and a” them and us” mentality is more than prevalent in many choirs and indeed many music groups at mass. Wagner was a racist (here comes the bride was written as satire),and yet he is esteemed in his music; both renaissance and baroque influence the liturgy and both are redolent with wind instrumentation. Context is everything. as i suggested above the guitar may not be suitable for the Old Rite but there is a place for it in the new rite and when done well can lead others into prayer. I understands and enjoy the noble pipe organ but we cannot make documents into what we want them to say.

        As for Editors comments I was not insulted or annoyed – robust debate and reflection is healthy.

        September 13, 2013 at 8:27 am
  • catholicconvert1

    Do I have to obey everything the Pope and the Church pronounces, particularly regarding the pronouncements on Atheists and gays, and parts of the Catechism that say that Jews, Muslims and Catholics worship the same God? This doesn’t flow from tradition and the eternal truth of the Church, and therefore, I don’t want to associate with it. Is there nothing a black marker pen won’t cure?

    I am going to have to find a good Church that uses the Extraordinary Form, as I think that Whistleblower gives a good description of ‘Novus Ordeal’. I only go to Novus Ordo out of convenience on a Sunday afternoon.

    September 12, 2013 at 12:19 pm
    • editor

      Catholic Convert,

      Paragraph 1 – I presume your first paragraph is meant as a bit of light-hearted fun since we’ve answered those questions over and over again, at your request. You’re “having a laugh”, as they say these days.

      Paragraph 2 – correct. Find a Mass with the Traditional Latin Mass offered on Sundays.

      September 12, 2013 at 6:19 pm
  • catholicconvert1

    No, I’m not having a laugh, because although (as you know) I totally agree with what you have told me concerning the issues in the first paragraph, however, I don’t want to somehow ‘separate’ myself from the Church by not agreeing with the Catechism on these issues. I want to be as traditional but i just don’t know how. The nearest Mass in TL is in Manchester at the Oratory on Cheetham Hill. I don’t have a) the time to do this and b) I can’t afford it every week. What I could do is get confirmed in my Novus Ordo parish and attend the Extraordinary Form in Halifax on a Saturday night (the only time they do it). Also, i’ll also get the Catechism which you use, i.e the Baltimore version (I think).

    September 12, 2013 at 6:48 pm
    • Miles Immaculatae

      There is a TLM in Bradford.


      Could you get to that?

      September 12, 2013 at 7:51 pm
    • Theresa Rose

      Catholic Convert,

      Apart from the Traditional Latin Mass at the Oratory on Cheetham Hill that you mention,
      The Societ of St Pius X also say the Traditional Mass in Manchester at 10am on Sunday mornings, and this is the link.


      I have no idea how far you would have to travel, for the Mass is at 10am.
      When I looked at the link Miles Immaculatae provided, the Mass is in Bingley and the Mass there is at 2.30pm on Sundays. I attended Mass in Bingley in July as I was staying in Leeds. I travelled on the Leeds to Skipton train. It 18/20 minutes and coming out of the train station Market Street is on opposite side of the street, and there is a reasonable car park in the street.

      September 12, 2013 at 10:21 pm
      • Vianney

        Theresa Rose, the Mass in Manchester is now at 9.30a.m.

        September 14, 2013 at 9:25 pm
    • Miles Immaculatae

      I highly recommend that for the sake of your soul you go to the SSPX Mass centre in West Yorkshire from now on.

      Are you being confirmed by your parish priest or by the diocesan bishop? There are serious questions about validity concerning Novus Ordo confirmations performed by presbyters. There are concerns about the matter and form of confirmations in the modern Church. Some bishops have been known not to consecrate real olive oil. Which is a necessity for the validity of the sacrament.

      I am a convert too and I was confirmed by a Novus Ordo priest. Fortunately I was conditionally confirmed by Bishop Fellay a few months ago. He will be in Great Britain again within the next three years. I highly recommend you look into this.

      September 12, 2013 at 11:07 pm
      • scottish priest

        I have never heard of Olive oil not being used .and I would be interested to hear why you think the Sacrament is invalid when conferred by a parish priest.

        September 13, 2013 at 8:30 am
      • Whistleblower

        Scottish Priest.

        The Vatican issued a clarification that vegetable oil can be used. I didn’t fancy the idea of being “confirmed” using crisp n dry!

        I don’t think there’s proper “laying of hands” either. Any Novus Ordeal confirmations I’ve seen has been hands in the air! No thanks.

        September 13, 2013 at 12:47 pm
      • Josephine

        Scottish Priest,

        I can’t remember where I read it but I read somewhere that there would sometimes be a question about confirmations carried out by the priest not the bishop. But the thing is, why don’t the bishops want to do the confirmations like they always used to? It was a big thing in the parish when the bishop was coming for confirmations. The priests are already overworked, while the bishops seem to go travelling the world. Why can’t the bishop do the confirmations in his diocese?

        September 13, 2013 at 1:03 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        I did not say that I believe the sacrament of confirmation is invalid when conferred by a priest. I said there are concerns about validity because the integrity of the correct matter, form and intention in many Novus Ordo Confirmations is questionable. However, I do not believe presbyters should confer the sacrament unless of grave necessity. The routine practice of parish priests performing confirmations is horrendous. Do you not agree?

        For example, let us assume a parish priest uses a vegetable in confirmations. Let us assume also that this vegetable oil doesn’t carry the blessing of the Chrism Mass conferred by a bishop. Let us assume the minister is a modernist and lacks the intention that he is changing the spiritual character of the candidate by sealing upon their souls the Holy Ghost.

        I wouldn’t say that was a valid Confirmation.

        September 13, 2013 at 2:34 pm
      • scottish priest

        I prepare our children if the bishop can t come after a request then I have the faculty to do the Confirmation. as well as catechising and preparing them, they all have to be in confession before they receive the sacrament. the idea that Chrism is not Olive oil and not blessed by the bishop is unthinkable and does not make sense

        September 13, 2013 at 4:10 pm
      • Petrus


        Doesn’t Canon Law say there needs to be a serious reason for the bishop to grant faculties to a priest? Wasn’t this the reason Bishop Tartaglia did all the Confirmations himself in Paisley? I don’t think it would be unreasonable for even the bishop of a large diocese to do all the Confirmations himself. Maybe if he stopped going to ecumenical meetings and Justice and Peace summits he might have more time to do his job!

        There’s something about the new rite of Confirmation itself that undermines the validity.

        September 13, 2013 at 8:11 pm
      • scottish priest

        I think he will change it in due course but I believe there is a meeting for priests in Glasgow that will identify and make decisions about that. Yes, it’s always better that the bishop confirm – I’m not sure what it is in the new rite that makes it invalid

        September 14, 2013 at 7:29 am
      • Petrus


        I don’t like these “Council of Priests” where there’s votes and decisions are made in a collegiate way. Too Protestant I think.

        I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the New Rite of Confirmation is invalid per se. Let me do a bit of research on that one.

        Good to hear that the archbishop might do his Confirmations himself. It was a positive move in Paisley.

        September 14, 2013 at 8:29 am
    • editor

      I was just about to say that you should not use the new Catechism. I use the Catechism of the Council of Trent (I do have a new Catechism) but I believe the Baltimore is very good as well.

      Now, I know that Christina had offered to take you to the SSPX (I think? Or FSSP?) and it would be much better if you were to take instructions from a traditional priest if at all possible but if not it has to be Plan B.

      September 12, 2013 at 11:08 pm
  • sixupman

    In dealing with homosexuality we refrain from highlighting the problem of the actual acts/practices.
    [BTW: there is now a mobile ‘phone device which allows one to contact homosexuals in the immediate vicinity in which one is currently located – for tea and buns I suppose.]

    I have so far restrained myself from raising one of the many major concerns with regard to married clergy and celibacy. If clergy are married, where within the daily routine and time-table of a priest will the respective conjugal rights fit in?

    As it happens Dr. Edward Peters – “In the light of the law” Blog,yesterday, relates the issue to “continence”.

    Inch by inch has been the push to a married clergy – in Liverpool their list of (lay) Deacons includes their respective spouses; the Anglican incomers being used as another excuse; et al.

    If clergy are to be married, wherein their sacrifice? They become glorified Joe Blogs’s.

    September 13, 2013 at 10:18 am
  • scottish priest

    Married clergy can never work theologically or with in the current infra structure of the CAtholic Church – it seems a crazy idea

    September 13, 2013 at 10:26 am
    • Miles Immaculatae

      What, and praying with Muslims doesn’t cause theological problems?

      Theological problems haven’t stopped the modernists yet, so it aint gonna stop em in the fututre.

      September 14, 2013 at 3:34 pm
    • Eileenanne

      Converts from The Church of England are doing it in many places.

      September 16, 2013 at 11:36 am
      • Eileenanne

        That was meant to come in after Scottish Priest’s comment that “Married clergy can never work theologically or with in the current infra structure of the CAtholic Church,,,!

        September 16, 2013 at 11:37 am
  • Leo

    If a man has difficulty with the vow of chastity at ordination, what makes him confident that the vows of marriage will be any less testing? Chastity and fidelity for the laity, whatever their station in life, are no less demanding. And is a priest to have two spouses; the Church of Christ and a wife? How long would it be before liberals started talking about annulments, separations, and divorces for any married clergy?

    Does anyone ever hear talk of sanctifying grace in all this discussion, except from those who support priestly celibacy? I know that on the old blog earlier in the year, Pasletanus gave an excellent justification for a celibate clergy, in just a couple of sentences.

    The constant talk of priestly celibacy indicates an apparent obsession with sexual matters amongst liberals. As indeed they have been for dissenters and heretics throughout Church history. As with so much else of the novus ordo nuclear devastation in the last five decades the demand for the abandonment of priestly vows of celibacy links back to a loss of a sense of the supernatural. The blurring of the distinction between the natural and the supernatural is of course one of the cornerstones of the New Theology. Also, it must be said that the spiritual dimension to priestly celibacy is really far more important than the practical arguments. On the issue of priestly celibacy, I fear all the casual talk about “discipline” as opposed to “dogma” really has done nothing but undermine the value of celibacy in the minds of many Catholics, priests included.

    The following short article is worth a read.


    he following are just a few excerpts that I picked out.

    “This tradition was solemnly proclaimed by the Council of Nicea, the first ecumenical council, in 325 AD. Canon no. 3, unanimously approved by the Fathers, made no concession whatsoever. The prohibition imposed thereby on all bishops, priests and deacons against having a wife is considered absolute; and all subsequent councils that have addressed the subject have renewed this interdiction.

    “If the Church has the right and power to abolish her own decrees, she cannot abolish those which have been indicated to her by Christ and His Apostles. This is what was affirmed by the Council of Carthage in 390 AD when, explaining the inviolability and the universality of the discipline decreed by the Nicean Council, the Fathers stated that celibacy is of Apostolic tradition. For instance, St. Epiphanius, Father of the Church, wrote, ‘It is the Apostles themselves who decreed this law.’ St. Jerome also testified:
    ‘Priests and deacons must be either virgins or widowers before being ordained, or at least observe perpetual continence after their ordination… If married men find this difficult to endure, they should not turn against me, but rather against Holy Writ and the entire ecclesiastical order.’

    Pope St. Innocent I (401-417 AD) wrote in the same vein:
    ‘This is not a matter of imposing upon the clergy new and arbitrary obligations, but rather of reminding them of those which the tradition of the Apostles and the Fathers has transmitted to us.’

    “If in fact the foundation of clerical celibacy is doctrinal and not disciplinary, it is because the cleric in major orders, by virtue of his ordination, contracts a marriage with the Church, and he cannot be a bigamist…

    “…St. Peter Damian (1007-1072) wrote:
    ‘No one can be ignorant of the fact that all the Fathers of the Catholic Church unanimously imposed the inviolable rule of continence on clerics in major orders. The Body of the Lord in the sacrament of the altar is the same as the one carried by the immaculate hands of the Virgin at Bethlehem. To be able to touch It, it is necessary to have pure hands, sanctified by perfect continence’.”

    September 13, 2013 at 5:09 pm
  • Leo

    I think it fair to say, that whatever the motives, the attack on the law of priestly celibacy, which goes back to the Apostles (Pius XI, Ad Catholici Sacerdotii Fastigium December 20 1935), is an attack on the holiness of the priesthood. Just as no one has a right to be ordained a priest, no man is forced to be ordained.

    “…We regard (celibacy) as the greatest glory of the catholic priesthood and what seems to us to be the most perfect fulfillment of the wishes and designs of the Sacred Heart for the sanctification of his priests.” Encyclical Ad Catholici Sacerdotii Fastigium, Pius XI December 20 1935

    Surely priestly celibacy is part of the solution of the crisis in the Church today? The priesthood is a life of sacrifice.

    “The priestly office demands of you, so to say, various particular forms of sacrifice amongst which is that primary and complete sacrifice of self in devotion to Christ which is made by celibacy.” – Pius XII Discourse to the Seminarians of the Roman Colleges, June 24 1939.

    “…This zeal for the glory of God and the salvation of souls, so characteristic of our Redeemer, should so inflame and so to speak, consume the heart of the priest that, forgetting self and personal interests, he will dedicate himself entirely to this sublime mission…”- Encyclical Ad Catholici Sacerdotii Fastigium, Pius XI December 20 1935.

    “In the words of the angelic Doctor, the use of marriage ‘holds back the soul from complete dedication to the service of God.”- Summa Theologica II-II, q.186, a. 4.

    Celibacy is also related to a priests role of acting as an alter Christus, serving at the Altar. As Archbishop Lefebvre said, priestly celibacy is related to faith in the Mass. It is surely not out of place to say the novus ordo Mass, by undermining the sacrificial aspect of the Mass has undermined the understanding of priestly celibacy. By replacing thoughts and words of the Mass as a sacrifice with those of an assembly, is it not inevitable that many priests will lose a grasp of their reason for being a priest: i.e. the Sacrifice?

    September 13, 2013 at 5:16 pm
    • Josephine


      Thanks for those great comments. I think this article from the EWTN website is very good indeed, and explains celibacy really well. http://www.ewtn.com/library/PRIESTS/CELIBACY.HTM

      September 13, 2013 at 7:11 pm
  • 3littleshepherds

    It might be that some Catholics have not been Confirmed. This is serious because what if someone, unconfirmed but believing he is, is ordained to the Priesthood? Eventually becomes Pope? It could happen if God allowed it.

    September 13, 2013 at 6:00 pm
    • Josephine

      3Little Shepherd,

      Anything could happen if God allowed it, but I don’t think we should worry about “what if” this happened or that happened. I think it’s better to trust in Divine Providence in these sorts of things.

      September 13, 2013 at 7:12 pm
      • 3littleshepherds

        I agree but I think all Confirmands should do all they can to make sure the matter and intention are proper in their particular cases.

        September 13, 2013 at 7:29 pm
    • Miles Immaculatae

      Any baptised Catholic male can receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders validly without confirmation. I don’t think a lack of Confirmation makes Holy Orders invalid per se.

      September 13, 2013 at 9:37 pm
      • 3littleshepherds

        I don’t know about validity. It would be difficult for them without the Gifts of the Holy Ghost. I just think we shouldn’t assume everyone is confirmed today. No one will know until we die anyway but it’s a possibility and could be an explanation for the weakness of some Catholics. Not really their fault, but they still have Grace to keep the Faith.

        September 13, 2013 at 9:59 pm
      • scottish priest

        no you need Confirmation for Holy Orders

        September 14, 2013 at 7:32 am
      • Petrus


        I’m pretty sure Miles is right. Canon Law states that Confirmation is required for Holy Orders to be licit, not valid. I would guess that Ordination without Confirmation is illicit, but valid.

        September 14, 2013 at 9:18 am
  • catholicconvert1

    Thanks for the heads up about Novus Ordo confirmations. What I might do, for the sake of convenience (and finance- I’m only a student and can’t really afford £10 travel costs every Sunday AND for Confirmation classes) is get Confirmed as ‘Novus Ordeal’ and then try to get conditionally confirmed later down the line. I’ll also get the Catechism of the Council of Trent and burn the other. One of the Priests at my parish believes that a Catholic Priest who converted to Islam will get to Heaven. Then we’ve got a Pope who bows to toasters. Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us. That’s what I’m dealing with. Please pray for me.

    Ed: see my response to Chardom below, with reference to the Novus Ordo Mass.

    September 14, 2013 at 1:59 pm
    • chardom


      September 14, 2013 at 11:28 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        Tell us Chardom, oh saintly paragon of Eucharistic piety and fervour: Since you’re so concerned, what is your opinion on practising homosexuals receiving Holy Communion in a state of Mortal sin?


        September 15, 2013 at 3:41 am
      • chardom

        Miles Immaculatae; PLEASE EXPLAIN the term ‘practising homosexual’
        Do You have a divine insight to another’s soul to state that Anyone receiving communion is in a state of mortal sin, or just those who are homosexual; why do You and others on this blog have such a fixation on matters sexual.
        Certainly it is very concerning if you are stating that you know the state of another’s soul when they receive the Eucharist!!!!!

        September 15, 2013 at 1:49 pm
      • Lily

        A practising homosexual is one who is actively homosexual. I would have thought that was obvious.

        September 15, 2013 at 1:58 pm
      • Lily


        I think it was you who raised homosexuality on this blog discussion, nobody else. So why are you accusing the rest of the bloggers of having a fixation with it?

        September 15, 2013 at 1:59 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        A practising homosexual (according to Lily’s definition) is normatively in a state of mortal sin. If a practising homosexual Catholic receives Holy Communion without first having been to Confession, he commits a grave sin. This is basic Church teaching.

        I mention homosexuality, firstly because you have previously mentioned homosexuality on this blog. You have accused readers of being ‘homophobic’, which logically implies you believe the teaching of the Church is ‘homophobic’. Secondly, because you criticised a reader’s lack of reverence towards the Holy Eucharist. Consider there are various ‘LGBT’ Masses in Great Britain, some more notorious than others. Here sacrilegious communions are openly facilitated. This is what I was getting at.

        You are right. I cannot read souls. Varoius saints could. For example Saint Pio of Pietrelcina.

        September 15, 2013 at 2:14 pm
      • editor


        You are right to ask bloggers to refrain from referring to the new Mass in the kind of derogatory terms we’ve read above.

        However, I think you owe Scottish Priest an apology. He is, indeed, a priest – one of the best of the archdiocesan priests – not least because he is willing to engage with us here at Catholic Truth, whatever his personal views may be about the aims of the newsletter, website and blog. I’d heard positive things about him long before I met him and long before he registered for our blog. You may rest assured that if Father had read the posts referring to the “novus ordeal” he would have pointed out, as you have done, that this is disrespectful. He is a very busy priest and does not blog as often as we’d all like him to do, but he does what he can, when he can. I think, therefore, that it would be right and proper for you to apologise for your words of rebuke to him.

        Dear All,

        Notwithstanding the genesis of the new Mass(es), and all the concerns that we frequently express on this blog about it, the fact is that it is (under the usual conditions) a valid Mass which is currently permitted by the Church, which means that the priest confects the Eucharist. Therefore, we should, at least, as Chardom says, refrain from referring to it in disrespectful terms.

        September 15, 2013 at 3:46 pm
    • Miles Immaculatae

      Catholic Convert,

      This is bullying. It’s also trolling.

      There is no point in engaging with the poster above.

      You have done absolutely nothing wrong.

      You may criticise the Novus Ordo freely without any moral fear whatsoever.

      The scandal he alleges to have felt is purely Pharisaical. He is feigning a kind of pious outrage in order to attack you, I doubt very much his intention is love for the Holy Eucharist. This is why it’s Pharisaical.

      The accusation of irreverence to the Holy Eucharist by a Catholic against another Catholic is a very grave accusation indeed. He will be held account to his words.

      The sum of my experience with the Novus Ordo is one of overwhelming spiritual and psychic trauma.

      September 14, 2013 at 11:58 pm
    • Eileenanne

      We don’t have a Pope who bows to toasters.

      September 16, 2013 at 11:32 am
  • catholicconvert1

    Comment removed

    September 15, 2013 at 2:15 pm
  • catholicconvert1

    Why was my comment removed? What about the ‘democratic spirit of the Church’? The fact is, if you are trying to protect Chardom from moi and my comments about his/ her very cosy relationship with the (new) Mass, what are you going to do protect him from the wrath of God for defending heresy? I was not, never have, and never will, mocking or disrespecting the Holy Eucharist, I was disrespecting the order of Mass. (Ed: well don’t) Believe you me, if you’d been to my Church today, you’d know why I have, and will continue to refer to the new order of Mass as (term deleted by editor who says you can refer to is however you wish elsewhere, but not on this blog). It is an ordeal, you should try it as a form of penance.

    Ed: I attended the new Mass for twenty years, so please do not suggest that I am living in a bubble. I know perfectly well what it is like. You need to do what I did, in due course, get to a Traditional Latin Mass, but do not hand our enemies a victory on a plate by using daft terms to describe the new (and getting newer by the minute) New Mass.

    September 15, 2013 at 10:12 pm
    • editor

      Catholic Convert,

      Your comment above was removed because it was totally unacceptable and provocative. You began by writing the offensive term across two lines. I have said not to use terms like “novus ordeal” on this blog – so that’s an end to it. Discussion over. I suggest you read the About Us section of the blog and if you decide that you cannot live with our simple rules and with the decisions of the unworthy administrator, my ever so humble self, then please blog elsewhere. Assertive, moi? People go on courses to get like this.

      Nobody is defending heresy and I am no fan of the new Mass. However, since it is a valid Mass (under the usual conditions) then we must believe that Our Lord is made present on the altar. Thus, a little respect is in order.

      Oh and, for the record, I’m certainly no fan of Chardom. Take my words at face value, accept the simple rules of this blog and the administrator’s decisions and you will start to move up the payscale.

      September 15, 2013 at 10:29 pm
    • Miles Immaculatae

      Catholic Convert,

      If assistance at the Novus Ordo Mass constitutes a psychic and spiritual trauma, I believe the moral obligation to assist at Mass on Sundays and Holy Days according to the third commandment is mitigated.

      I have heard it mentioned before by some who disagree with this position that there is always an obligation to attend the Mass, even if the Novus Ordo is the only rite feasibly available. They assert we must attend the Novus Ordo, and any suffering accruing to this must be embraced as a trial, a penance.

      Contrary to this, I affirm the teaching that some forms of penance are illicit. We are forbidden to harm ourselves by our penitential practices. The Novus Ordo has an adverse affect on my mental health, it causes me to be agitated, depressed, and sometimes even causes racing racing thoughts and rage. I doubt this is uncommon. Not everybody experiences this, most Catholics don’t understand it. But there are varying degrees of sensitivity among humans.

      We are also forbidden to expose our souls to poisonous intellectually and morally corrupting influences. For example: liberal, modernist, protestantised, talmudicised, paganised, anthropocentric (Man-worshipping), profane and sacrilegious Liturgies and Prayer.

      You will have to make this decision. It’s your soul, your conscience at the end of the day.

      My conviction is that there is no obligation to attend the Novus Ordo. A Catholic priest from whom I have received spiritual council supported this view, indeed it was him that said it.

      I know it’s not your fault due to geography, and I feel for you, but if you insist on continuing to assist at the Novus Ordo, do you really have grounds to complain???

      September 15, 2013 at 10:40 pm
      • 3littleshepherds

        One of our priests (SSPX) had a good way of explaining it, he would say, “You do not have an obligation to attend the New Mass and once you understand, then, you have the obligation to not attend the New Mass.”
        If you go to the Sacred Heart and make a Novena to Him asking Him to help you to get to the Traditional Mass He will help you. But remember you get what you ask for, if you only ask to go once a month or once a week you might just get that. I’d ask for the whole thing, to go every day. The more it seems impossible the more you should ask.

        September 16, 2013 at 12:43 am
      • Petrus


        I agree with a lot of what you say. I feel slightly uncomfortable with the idea that we had an obligation NOT to attend the New Mass. That would suggest that it is sinful to attend it. I know this isn’t what you meant, but I think we should avoid ambiguities on this. I found it really difficult to stop going to the New Mass altogether so we need to be crystal clear.

        I think it is suffice to say there is no obligation to attend the New Mass.

        September 16, 2013 at 8:21 am
      • 3littleshepherds

        Did you reply to me? I was just repeating what Father said. I like to do that, it puts it on his head. He did tell us to go to weddings, of course, where the New Mass was offered, but not to participate in the Mass. He said to kneel during the Consecration.
        I believe what Archbishop Lefebvre stated, that the New Mass is “valid but not grace giving.” That’s apparent.

        September 16, 2013 at 4:05 pm
      • 3littleshepherds

        I would definitely not attend the Novus Ordo Mass. Michael Davies wrote that years ago someone had put a sweetener or something into making the hosts in the Chicago US area. I think it was finally corrected. But for years people had been going to a Mass that was not a Mass, there was no consecration. Priest and people had been adoring a cookie.

        September 16, 2013 at 4:26 pm
      • crofterlady

        Miles, I think you are correct in asserting that there is no obligation to attend a Novus Ordo Mass on a Sunday even if that’s the only option available. However, as the mother of a large family I would caution prudence in this matter.

        A friend of mine told me that years ago she took just that decision and the family spend a holy hour together instead. After some years a traditional priest arrived at their parish and offered the Tridentine Mass every Sunday. When my friend prepared to attend these Masses one of her (youngish) children said: “Mum, why go? Why can’t we just do our usual holy hour instead? She was shocked and realised that if her children lost the Mass-going habit, they would probably lapse, and she vowed to always attend Mass whatever the rite.

        We have taken the same decision even though it can be very painful sitting through a Novus Ordo Missae. I believe that many graces can be gained by “offering up” such sufferings.

        September 16, 2013 at 10:22 am
      • Eileenanne

        There is a clear and unambiguous obligation on Catholics, under pain of mortal sin, to attend Mass every Sunday, unless it is impossible. The non-availability of one’s preferred rite in NOT a reason to miss Mass. Anyone who tells Catholics otherwise is leading them astray.

        September 16, 2013 at 11:13 am
      • Petrus


        We’ve been round the block so many times on this. You were wrong then and you are wrong now.

        1. St Pius V made it explicitly clear that the Mass of Trent was binding on all Catholics. In fact, he expressively forbade the creation of a “New Mass”. Only the Roman Rite, codified at Trent, is binding on Catholics.

        2. The Liturgy of the Catholic Church must be received and approved. The Novus Ordo Missae has not been “received” by the Church (it was invented in 1969!)

        3. The Second Vatican Council did not call for a New Mass.

        4. Anyone who knows the chequered history of the New Mass knows that they should avoid it.

        5. The abuses at the New Mass are a danger to the soul. We must avoid these abuses.

        We must remember however, that there will be Catholics who cannot bring themselves in good conscience to miss Mass. In these cases they must follow their conscience but reject the novelties and sacrileges found at the New Mass. They should continue to develop their understanding of the issues and pray for guidance.

        September 16, 2013 at 4:07 pm
      • Lily


        If you were in a parish where things like clown Masses were commonplace, really serious abuses like that happening regularly, that when you went to Mass you really didn’t know what was going to be dished up, would you attend it every Sunday?

        If it got so that you really found it unbearable but there was no Latin Mass within travelling distance, what would you do? Would you go to the clown Mass or would you stay home and pray your rosary, thinking that would please God more?

        I think I know what I would do but I am very interested to hear what you would do.

        September 16, 2013 at 7:22 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae


        Personally, I wouldn’t choose to take my children to the Novus Ordo. Simply because my intellect has been formed on the matter. However, they are impressionable. I wouldn’t want to risk leaving them vulnerable to becoming ‘disorientated’. I would say there is a real risk they might stop attending Mass and lapsing in adulthood if they habitually attended disorientated liturgies in childhood.

        The traditional Mass is a great gift to give your children. If I took them to the Novus Ordo, I just don’t think they would end up appreciating that.


        Yes, it is not sinful to attend the Novus Ordo. Although if there is the option to attend the Traditional Mass, then I believe it is imprudent.

        I do however believe it is immoral to attend Masses where the Holy Eucharist is routinely desecrated, Or where there are grave abuses, for example where Protestants are invited to receive Holy Communion. Which in theory could take place in either rite.

        September 16, 2013 at 4:11 pm
      • Petrus


        Spot on. I couldn’t agree more. If I had to attend the New Mass, I would seek the most reverent Mass (a tall order).

        September 16, 2013 at 4:28 pm
      • Eileenanne


        Well, that is a step in the right direction. In a previous discussion you said you would miss Mass if the rite you prefer were unavailable.

        I could provide authoritative evidence that Catholics are obliged to attend Mass on Sundays and that the Church allows us to choose between the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms (and other rites which are less available here). Can you do the same for your assertion that it is acceptable to miss Mass when only the form of the Mass routinely celebrated by the Pope is available?

        September 16, 2013 at 4:40 pm
      • Petrus


        I said “if I had to attend the New Mass”. I don’t. I wouldn’t.

        Please provide the evidence that the New Mass, promulgated in 1969, is binding on all Catholics….

        September 16, 2013 at 4:42 pm
      • Eileenanne

        It is MASS on Sunday that is binding on all Catholics. There is a choice of approved forms. We are free to choose the one we prefer, but if our preference is not available we still have the obligation to attend whatever Mass we can get to.

        What do SSPX priests tell people about their obligation in this regard?

        September 16, 2013 at 4:46 pm
      • Petrus

        Where is your authoritative evidence you claimed to have?

        September 16, 2013 at 4:47 pm
      • Eileenanne

        The third Commandment “Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day”. Authoritative enough?

        September 16, 2013 at 4:50 pm
      • Petrus

        No. Which decree from a pope overrides St Pius V Quo Primum?

        September 16, 2013 at 4:51 pm
      • Eileenanne

        Miles Immaculatae,

        I am sure the Pope will be relieved to have your assurance (and Petrus’s) that he is not committing sin by routinely celebrating Mass in the Ordinary Form.

        September 16, 2013 at 4:43 pm
      • 3littleshepherds

        My mother tried to do this in the 1970’s. She said the priest gave a sermon one Sunday explaining how he no longer prayed to the God “out there” but rather to the God that was within him. She said she gathered all my six brothers together after Mass and said “What you heard Father just say, I want you to forget it, put it out of your minds.” She said that she had never had to correct what a priest said before and that it was very hard for her. She had known the priest before Vatican II and he had been very sound. But shortly after this sermon the priest left our parish and went to teach Process Theology at the University.

        September 16, 2013 at 6:10 pm
  • 3littleshepherds

    Also, I remember being told that St. Augustine said something like, “Love God then do what you want.” But what I understand St. Augustine to be saying is that whatever you do, do it because you love God. If you make your judgements and decisions about how to think and act (in the crisis in the Church) based upon love for Our Lord you will not get bitter.

    September 16, 2013 at 12:59 am
  • sixupman

    A Clifton Diocese parish which I was, due to circumstance, forced to attend was proving disturbing to my frame-of-mind, with my physical presence being there but nothing else. I Confessed the problem to another Diocesan priest and he said see it as a penance. I could, of course, have availed myself, in the circumstances, by attending the CofE 200 yards away – under the edict of the E&W Bishops’ Conference [2003 ?]

    September 16, 2013 at 6:52 am
    • crofterlady

      Whaaat? Are you serious? Are you saying that one can actually fulfil one’s Sunday obligation by attending the C of E? Can you explain?

      September 16, 2013 at 10:24 am
      • sixupman

        There are/were documents issued: one relating to fulfilment of Sunday Duty, not only by attendance at CofE, but also other chapels [“Wee Free” if they would let you in?]; the second relating to Protestant participation at Mass in our churches.

        In view of the new Blog format, I will let our esteemed Editor to have copies, which she might be able to put up for consideration.

        The Papa Stronsay Monks also published the first document when it was published.

        About the same time, Granada TV broadcast a series of “Masses” from St, Werburgh’s, Preston, Lancs., of services in which there was multi-religions participating, doubtful Consecration and all partipating in the reception of “Communion”.

        September 16, 2013 at 11:46 am
      • crofterlady

        Thanks sixupman for the documents. I am really shocked by this. I really had no idea this was allowed and even sanctioned!

        September 17, 2013 at 2:38 pm
      • editor


        I think I’m correct (as usual!) in saying that those documents were speedily removed form the diocesan website once word began to spread about them?

        September 17, 2013 at 6:48 pm
      • sixupman

        Possibly half correct! One remained on the E&W Bishops’ Conference web-site for some time [I will check current status] – the one regarding Catholic participation in Protestant services. The “Sunday Duty” one was taken-down after a while, but, in effect, hidden as I obtained a copy subsequent thereto.

        I have recently discovered that Eccleston Square is manned by salaried lay ‘religious spads’ imbued with a ‘Nuchurch’ agenda and vested interest in such. A full eight pages of the E&W 2012 Directory are devoted to ecumenical relations exposing a (still) burgeoning bureaucracy.

        That situation, supported by +++Murphy O’Connor and his co-conspirators, form part of the phalanx attempting to undermine the current Apostolic Nuncio +++Mennini. [See also current C.O.]

        Whether still published, or not, the documents expose the frame-of-mind prevailing within the E&W Conference and Diocese, with very few exceptions and that assertion is supported by, inter alia, the content of the 2012 ‘Directory’ mentioned above.

        September 17, 2013 at 7:24 pm
    • Petrus

      This surely cannot be right? Attending a C of E parish would be a sin. It certainly wouldn’t fulfil your obligation. You’d be as well staying at home and having tea and toast!

      September 16, 2013 at 4:30 pm
      • sixupman

        I did not say it would, the hierarchy stated it would.

        September 17, 2013 at 7:26 pm
      • Petrus

        Can you quote the exact document? I just don’t believe they did.

        September 17, 2013 at 7:30 pm
      • editor

        I will email them to you. Seeing is believing Which is why evolution is a non-starter.

        September 17, 2013 at 7:43 pm
      • sixupman

        Madam Editor has copies of the document(s) as does “Crofterlady”. Of course the edict does,did not apply in Scotland.

        September 17, 2013 at 7:35 pm
      • Petrus

        I’ve just read the documents. They DO say that in rural areas Catholics can play a part in the spiritual life of the local Anglican parish, but it DOESN’T say attending this parish fulfils the Sunday Obligation. It does say that Catholics should not receive “communion” in Protestant parishes.

        September 18, 2013 at 8:32 am
      • sixupman

        It depends how you interpret the weasel words which emanate from Eccleston Square and it certainly does imply that one can fulfil one’s Sunday/Holyday Duty by attendance at your local Protestant church/chapel or whatever.

        Are you in agreement with the tenor of both sets of documents?

        September 18, 2013 at 8:48 am
      • Petrus

        I think it’s sinful to attend Protestant worship in an active way. We may attend weddings/funerals in a passive way, ie. not singing hymns, joining in prayers etc.

        The fact of the matter is if there is no Catholic Mass available then there’s no obligation. I would wonder why Catholics are living in an area with no reasonable possibility of getting to Mass.

        September 18, 2013 at 8:55 am
      • editor


        That’s modernist-speak for saying you can fulfil your Sunday obligation in the local Anglican parish. It’s unlikely the bishop would spell it out (he knows there folks like us around) but that’s essentially what he appears to be saying. Shocking.

        September 18, 2013 at 9:41 am
      • Petrus

        Editor ,

        See you at the Baptist church on Sunday?

        September 18, 2013 at 9:56 am
      • editor

        I was thinking more Presbyterian. Great sermons I believe!

        September 18, 2013 at 2:44 pm
      • Petrus

        Been there, done that, bought the sash and bowler hat!

        September 18, 2013 at 3:25 pm
  • catholicconvert1


    I can tell you that attending Novus Ordo Masses constitute a psychological and spiritual trauma. But, how can I not go? It’s a valid Mass, though banal and protestantised, and I don’t want to persist in a state of mortal sin by not fulfilling my obligation? I’m not a Catholic yet, but I don’t want to sleep walk into a mental breakdown. There were guitars (which the Devil invented) and one Sunday there were tambourines. I just feel like standing on the pew, and screaming ‘apostates’ at the priest and the congregation and running up to the hospital to get sectioned. I do feel genuinely depressed, spiritually and mentally. There are Tridentine Masses on the internet. It may sound daft, but couldn’t I watch them and say the Communion prayers from my prayer book to undertake a spiritual communion?

    I’m going to get confirmed in the RCIA, then fulfil my obligation by attending the Saturday Vigil in the Extraordinary form in Halifax. I think avoiding the trauma of Novus Ordo is a good reason to attend the vigil. I might look into getting confirmed again by Bishop Fellay. Then I can come to tea and biccies with Editor. Tunnock teacakes here I come.

    September 16, 2013 at 11:48 am
    • Miles Immaculatae

      As I said, there is no moral obligation, i.e. it would not incur the penalty of mortal sin.

      September 16, 2013 at 4:01 pm
      • Petrus


        Correct. We must always be mindful that it takes a while to get to that stage though. That’s why I can understand why eileenanne struggles with this. It’s an outrageous things to suggest, missing Mass, but the abuses and the history of the New Mass is even more outrageous.

        September 16, 2013 at 4:09 pm
      • Eileenanne

        Eileenanne is not struggling with this. I am quite clear about my obligation to attend Mass every Sunday and Holyday unless it is impossible.

        September 16, 2013 at 4:48 pm
      • Petrus

        So you are happy to discount St Pius V declaration that the Missal of Trent was binding in perpetuity?

        September 16, 2013 at 4:49 pm
      • Eileenanne

        I don’t think that is what he meant. He was tidying up a situation where many versions of the Mass were floating around. All he was doing was unifying them and getting rid of the unacceptable ones. The were quite a few changes to the missal over the ensuing years, The last before the introduction of what we now call the Ordinary Form was, I believe in 1962.

        September 16, 2013 at 4:54 pm
      • Eileenanne


        if the inspired Word of God is not authoritative enough for you, I cannot see much point in discussing this further, but I leave you with a warning that you could be on a sticky wicket missing Mass just because your preferred form in not available. God bless,

        September 16, 2013 at 4:57 pm
      • Lily


        You seem to be wanting to apply the letter of Canon Law (about Sunday Mass) rather than its spirit.

        September 16, 2013 at 7:24 pm
      • Eileenanne

        My conviction that we are obliged to attend Mass even if our preferred rite is not on offer stems from my belief in the Third Commandment (quoted above) and the First of the Commandments of the Church which specifies HOW we are to keep the Sabbath holy. I wasn’t thinking of Canon Law at all, either its letter or its spirit.

        September 16, 2013 at 8:32 pm
      • Petrus

        Wrong. Do you think if all he was doing was “tidying up” he would state that anyone who introduced a new missal would incur the wrath of St Peter and Paul? Hmm.

        There weren’t “quite a few” changes. There was a small number of minor changes. Never a New Mass.

        September 16, 2013 at 4:57 pm
      • Eileenanne

        Who decides whether a “minor change” is too big?
        Isn’t it true that mony a mickle maks a muckle?

        What DO SSPX priests tell people about whether to miss Mass or not when their preferred rite is not available?

        September 16, 2013 at 6:59 pm
      • Petrus


        I’ve never asked. Why don’t you ask?

        Why don’t you compare the 1954 missal to the 1962 missal and see if you can spot the difference?

        Now….where is your evidence that a future pope revoked the Quo Primum and made the Novus Ordo Missae binding on all Catholics…?

        September 16, 2013 at 7:21 pm
      • Eileenanne

        I have never suggested that any particular version of the Mass is the only one binding on Catholics. The Church accepts a number of rites of the Mass. Attendance at any of them fulfills the Sunday obligation. We are free to choose which to attend, but MUST attend one of them every Sunday unless it is impossible to do so.

        I never realised there was a 1954 version of the Missal. Seems Pius XII didn’t think Pope Pius V meant his Mass to be unchanged for all time either.

        I am very surprised that you have never asked an SSPX priest whether you are justified in missing Mass when you cannot get to your preferred rite. I am unlikely ever to meet an SSPX priest, but if I ever do, I will certainly ask.

        September 16, 2013 at 8:29 pm
      • Petrus

        Eileenanne ,

        St Pius V didn’t say there couldn’t be minor changes….he said there couldn’t be a New Mass. Keep up!

        The Church, through St Pius V, declared that Catholics were obliged to attend the Roman Rite as promulgated at Trent. He made provision for other Rites that were over 200 years old at the time. He made it crystal clear that if anyone dared introduce a New Rite they would incur the wrath of Blessed Peter and Paul.

        So….I repeat….when did the Church state that the Novus Ordo Missae was exempt from the Quo Primum and binding on all Catholic?

        September 16, 2013 at 8:34 pm
      • Petrus


        I wouldn’t really have any reason to ask that question. Unless I am ill I rarely miss Mass. However, I think I did ask that question about five years ago. If I remember correctly the priest said he couldn’t recommend attending the New Mass. For the reasons that have been presented to you for a few years now.

        September 16, 2013 at 8:36 pm
    • editor

      Catholic Convert,

      Of course you can come and have tea and biccies with me anytime, after Mass in the SSPX chapel – I thought that was against your religion though, not to mention the fact that I thought you lived in England for your many sins! (Joking! I love England)

      September 17, 2013 at 6:50 pm
  • 3littleshepherds

    I never tell anyone it’s not a sin to attend the Novus Ordo Mass. I don’t think I can say that.

    September 16, 2013 at 4:44 pm
  • catholicconvert1

    Why did the Society of St Pius V break away from SSPX? What’s wrong with the 1962 rite? I was under the impression that the SSPX celebrated the pre-1962 Mass?

    September 16, 2013 at 6:58 pm
    • Eileenanne

      There is nothing wrong with the 1962 Mass. It is one of the forms of Mass approved by the Church.

      September 16, 2013 at 7:02 pm
      • editor

        I can see that the question of the new Mass is taking up lots of space on this thread, so I’ve launched a fresh thread on the topic of our Sunday obligation. Please comment there from now on, please and thank you all!

        September 16, 2013 at 8:33 pm
  • catholicconvert1


    ‘And is a priest to have two spouses; the Church of Christ and a wife? How long would it be before liberals started talking about annulments, separations, and divorces for any married clergy’?

    My arguments exactly.

    September 18, 2013 at 1:57 pm
    • Eileenanne

      We already have some married priests. Exactly the same rules about annulments, separations and divorces apply to them as to any other married catholics.

      September 18, 2013 at 10:22 pm
      • Eileenanne

        Except that married priests or deacons who are widowed may not re-marry.

        September 18, 2013 at 10:36 pm
      • editor


        Do you really want a parish priest who is separated from his wife? Who is watching the post for the divorce papers? Really?

        Anne Atkins, writer and broadcaster, married to an Anglican vicar, once said in her “Thought for the Day” slot on Radio 4, that her husband’s parishioners knew that his family comes first. Thus, on occasion, it might be necessary to pin a notice to the church door to say “no service – family emergency” .

        Would you be OK with that? Somehow it doesn’t sit comfortably with Christ’s exhortation to leave fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers and wives” for His sake…

        I once stood aside after Mass, when visiting some friends in a convent because one of the Sisters I was visiting wanted a word with the priest. A few others queued up. I got chatting to a woman standing on her own, apparently waiting for the priest, but aside from the queue so I thought there was time for a quick chat. She sure was waiting for the priest, but not because she wanted an appointment or to ask for prayers for a special intention. She was his wife. Turned out, he was one of the Anglican-converts. Watching those (mostly women) waiting to speak to the priest and his wife standing aside watching, I reflected that in a trillion trillion YEARS I would never confide anything in any married priest. Can you name a woman in the world who would not torture him until he spilled whatever beans they’d confided in him? Forget it.

        The fact that married Anglican vicars have been permitted to be ordained (as long as they were already married) is just one more piece of evidence of the phenomenal “liberal” and modernist influence in the Church today; yet more evidence of the horrendous crisis afflicting the Church. Especially since it was emphasised by the English bishops at the time that this “exception” would not be used to demand an end to celibacy or permission for Catholic married priests. “Yeah right” I said at the time – and, WOW, have I been proved right -again! Over and over again, we find in conversations and on blogs, the very remark you’ve just made: we already have married priests… No mention of this as being an “exception”. It’s a case of “some priests are married – get over it!”

        September 18, 2013 at 10:49 pm
      • Eileenanne

        Where did suggest I thought married priests would be a good idea? I have never said here or anywhere else that I wanted to see an end to celibacy for priests. If it came to a vote I’d be at the forefront of the “No” campaign.

        September 18, 2013 at 11:36 pm
      • editor


        Nobody suggested that you thought married priests would be a good idea. All I said was that people who DO support this aberration, quote, as you have done, the fact that there ARE now married priests due to the exception made for Anglican convert vicars, without ever mentioning that these WERE meant to be “exceptions”

        Me, I always add that no such exception should have been made at all. One of the people to whom I offered that view, was a very VERY angry young priest in the Diocese of Portsmouth who just could not see why the Anglican converts were allowed to be ordained as married priests when he couldn’t marry.

        If the Anglican vicars were genuine converts, they would have been accepting of the fact that they could not continue to work as clergy. End of. And, in fact, I believe most, if not all, were prepared for that eventuality. It was the usual disoriented zeal of the English hierarchy that, it seems to me, dreamt up this golden excuse to undermine celibacy, big time.

        I’m very glad to hear that you’d be voting “no” for an end to celibacy, Eileenanne. I see there’s still work to be done, however, on the other thread, to get you to vote “no” on 18th September next year! To battle, then, on the independence thread !

        September 18, 2013 at 11:49 pm
      • Eileenanne

        OK – I though your opening paragraph read as if I was being chided for approving of married priests when all I had done was acknowledge their existence.

        On independence I am so far in the undecided camp. We’ll see what happens as the campaign goes on, both here and in the real world.

        September 19, 2013 at 10:53 am
  • catholicconvert1

    I’m sure I’d love to have tea and biccies with you. As I’m a bit of a rebel I would go to the SSPX Chapel. Editor, I’m a pragmatic individual, and I’m slowly coming around to your way of thinking. I’ve seen the simple beauty and glory of the traditional Mass on the internet, and if I feel that by watching something online, then what will I feel when I see it personally. I’ll get back to you on Sunday after I’ve been to the NO. I’ll tell you what rotten eggs it throws at me.

    Because I’m a humble person, I may even come to support the SSPX. After my NO confirmation, I might even investigate a conditional confirmation by Bishop Fellay. Did I read someone saying that olive oil is not used? What do they use? Crisp n dry or dripping? I thought the Church used olive oil.

    September 18, 2013 at 3:51 pm
    • editor

      Catholic Convert,

      “Coming round to my way of thinking” means I will treat YOU to the tea and biccies. Just say when!

      I note that you are “a humble person” – what, you too? WOW, we ought to write the book…

      September 18, 2013 at 10:54 pm
    • Miles Immaculatae

      My goodness CC, you keep on changing your positions and allegiences. Tell us, your’re a Liberal Democrat aren’t you?

      September 18, 2013 at 11:32 pm
  • 3littleshepherds

    What is a biccie? Is that a cookie or a donut?

    September 19, 2013 at 1:23 am
    • Miles Immaculatae

      A biscuit.

      September 19, 2013 at 1:33 am
      • editor

        Which I believe is a “cookie” in the USA.

        September 19, 2013 at 10:06 am
  • catholicconvert1


    Only my mum calls me ‘CC’ thank you very much. Just joking. Listen, I ain’t a libdem. I’d sooner shoot myself. I may be booloo but I’m not stupid. I doubt as to whether i’ll vote. No party is pro-life enough for me. They all propagate sin. If I was going to vote, it would be UKIP. You should know I’m still finding my feet with Catholicism, so I’m happy to take (better) advice from veterans like your good self. Thats why I’m open minded and able to change.


    I’d love to write the book, so long as my name goes first.

    September 19, 2013 at 11:33 am

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: