Oh to be in Richmond......

.......now that bigotry's there



The Godless ones are at it again, this time in the leafy borough of Richmond-upon-Thames - home of boating, bijou brasseries, baristas and many pubs serving delicious Young's beer (almost as good as.....well you know the rest).

You see, something terrible is happening in this peaceful town, the Catholic authorities wish to build two new schools, one primary and one secondary.

Shock! Horror!
It's enough to make one spill one's Earl Grey.

The nerve and cheek of Catholics - wanting to bring their children up in their own faith, indoctrinating them (if only) and brain washing them so that they, in turn will have children themselves when adult (and in a heterosexual married state) and so the Catholic faith will be passed on from generation to generation.

What was it Cromwell said when he exterminated Irish Catholics willy nilly? (to such a degree that the holocaust, viewed per head of population, was positively liberal) - he said: "Nits make lice"

That's a good reason for a Humanist or a rancid Puritan to annihilate children as well as adults, "Nits make lice", a chilling phrase if ever there was one.

I'm surprised that BPAS or Marie Stopes have not adopted it as an advertising banner.

So, well done for Westminster Diocese for pushing ahead to seek planning approval and here is how Francis Phillips reported on the matter in The Catholic Herald.....

"....The BHA argue that if the council ratifies the plans they are flouting new rules from the Education Act 2011 that state: “If a local authority in England think a new school needs to be established in their area, they must seek proposals for the establishment of an Academy’ [i.e. a Free School]. Proposals are then adjudicated by the Department for Education (DfE).”

A statement from the BHA continues: “Richmond Council has been clear that it thinks the borough needs a Catholic secondary school to complement its existing Catholic primaries, and that there is also a need for a new Catholic primary to provide additional places. They say that the Act allows them to go ahead with Voluntary Aided Catholic schools without first following the above rule.

“The BHA is concerned that this offers a way of opening religious schools in the face of public opposition by the back door, avoiding the competition that would otherwise be required.”


This challenge to the Church looks as if it is a sign of things to come.

Who else will contest a planning application for a new Catholic School in the future? 

The Freemasons, the Communists, Liberal Democrats (same thing), The Royal and Ancient Order of Water Shrews?


So enjoy this verse while you may.....England may not be around for much longer.

Oh, to be in England
Now that April 's there,
And whoever wakes in England
Sees, some morning, unaware,
That the lowest boughs and the brushwood sheaf
Round the elm-tree bole are in tiny leaf,
While the chaffinch sings on the orchard bough
In England—now!

And after April, when May follows,
And the whitethroat builds, and all the swallows!
Hark, where my blossom'd pear-tree in the hedge
Leans to the field and scatters on the clover
Blossoms and dewdrops—at the bent spray's edge—
That 's the wise thrush; he sings each song twice over,
Lest you should think he never could recapture
The first fine careless rapture!
And though the fields look rough with hoary dew,
All will be gay when noontide wakes anew
The buttercups, the little children's dower
—Far brighter than this gaudy melon-flower!

Did Archbishop Nichols really write this letter?

Archdiocese of Westminster,
motto: "Could do better"

This passed me by at the time, Archbishop Vincent Nichols letter to secondary school students sent out on 5th September in both video and text format by Westminster's Director of Education, Paul Barber.

One might even suspect that the good Archbishop never ever wrote it and that it was written by a person of the Diocesan Education Department.

Why?

Because it is, in my view, a pretty dire piece of English purportedly expressing a Catholic message that is so wrapped up in gobbledeygook it might just as well have been a Tablet editorial.

It takes 12 paragraphs of gut wrenching copy before religion or God enters the picture at all. It is badly written and it does nothing to inspire or show the dynamism of the faith.

It talks inanely about self respect; it patronises and it condescends.

It is so bad that I am beginning to feel that it is me that has got it all wrong. My Catholic education (admittedly light years ago) majored on self humility, not self respect and I knew the basic principles of right and wrong when I was four years old.

If I was (let us wildly imagine) a 15 year old student that managed to read the Archbishop's message through to its conclusion (no mean feat by itself) I would feel less than enamoured of a faith that spoke to me in such terms; in fact, I would seriously consider that I might be on the wrong train!

Here is the letter.....I have commented sparingly in red, one could comment on almost every word.
 Note that it is addressed to 'Secondary School Children' not a good start.........

The Most Rev Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster’s message to Secondary School Children in (am I being picky or should there be a 'the' here?) Diocese of Westminster

5 September 2011

Today I want to speak to you, to each student in our secondary schools, as you begin this new school year.

I hope you have had a good summer. Some of you may have been on a family holiday. Some of you will have got your exam results. Some of you may have had a difficult time. It’s not always easy being a teenager, (ermm, secondary education begins at the age of 11) knowing what to do or who to follow. All of you will have known about the riots in our capital city. (Yes, your Grace, but what about them?)

Now you come back to the patterns of school and college life with the demands they make and the opportunities they carry.

Here you learn again about being part of a community that is far wider than your family. Central to what you learn is the need to show respect for each other and have some responsibility for each other if you are going to make the best of the opportunities given to you here.

These lessons of mutual respect and responsibility went out of the window for those few days of rioting and looting. I know that many of you were upset at what you saw.

Since then much has been said about young people today. But I am confident that you do understand the issues involved: that we owe respect to others in every circumstance; that theft is wrong; that we are easily tempted in the spur of a moment; that the actions we take always have  their consequences.(If I was a secondary school student I might suspect the Archbishop of painting me as part of the riot mob).

But it is a deeper truth that I want to stress, one that underlines all these other points. It is this: the respect we have for each other is rooted in the respect we have for ourselves. Your respect for yourself is so important. Self-respect is what helps to set the standards by which you live.

That might sound simple. But profound and true self-respect is difficult to achieve. So many influences can sway you this way and that making you feel confused about who you really are and what you really want.

Self-respect is something you grow into gradually, as you come to accept and appreciate the abilities and character you have been given. You learn of it through those who love you. You can lose sight of it when you feel dejected or misunderstood.

When you truly respect yourself then you set yourself high standards of behaviour especially in the company of your own age group. You are not afraid to be different. When you truly respect yourself you also have high achievement targets. You want to do your best and be your best.

As you get older, you come to understand for yourself the differences between right and wrong. You learn how to be generous with what is right and how to say ‘no’ to what is wrong. Gradually you seek and find true and lasting values, not just those promoted by fashion or celebrity.(celebrity what?) Gradually you acquire the habits and routines of good behaviour, so that you know how to behave even when no-one is watching.(I can't believe this twaddle - it is aimed at those in the age bracket 13 to 19 is it not?)

But what is the deepest foundation of this self-respect?

When you look at yourself in a mirror who do you really see? A child of your parents, certainly. A person liked by their friends. And a face anxious about its appearance. (You mean...it can't be...acne your Grace?) But you see someone more.(More?, should that be 'else'?)

What you see is someone expressed in this truth, on which you can rely: ‘Before you were born God called you. From your mother’s womb God pronounced your name.’ (Jer.49.1)

There it is. You are a child of God. That is who you see each morning in the mirror. It is God’s life that is within you, the supreme gift that you have received. When you understand this, everything changes. This is why you have such respect for yourself, in every aspect of your being, and in your future. This is also why you have respect for your family and for every other human being for they too have the same dignity as you, as sons and daughters of one heavenly Father. We share one life together.

This truth lies at the heart of the life of your school community. I trust that in this coming year you will continue to learn more about the greatness of human living and achievement, about your faith in God made visible in Jesus Christ who is your friend and companion, about your own abilities and true potential. I hope that as you grow and learn you will see the importance of giving good leadership to others around you and the importance of contributing to your local community to build a just and compassionate society. What you give, the service you offer, helps others around you, but it really helps you to grow in self-respect as well.

Thank you for listening to me. I ask that you take a copy of this message home to your parents and talk about it with them, too.

One last thought. All your actions are carried out in the presence of God. You can be sure that God never lets you out of sight because God loves you so much that He can never take His eyes off you. God wants to watch as you prosper and truly flourish. You are loved so much. Please remember this in the term ahead.

God bless you all.

Archbishop Vincent Nichols

2 September 2011

So what makes me think that some other person may be the author of this missive? (Apart from the poor grammar and misplaced content).

 Well  this is how it was presented on one school's website (and it was not the Cardinal Vaughan School)

Paul Barber, Director for Education at the Diocese of Westminster, has informed us of a message from Archbishop Vincent Nicholls (sic) that the Archbishop would like all secondary students aware of as soon as is reasonable.
Paul Barber writes,
"As you will have read ... Archbishop Vincent has recorded a video message addressing all students in our secondary schools. He has requested that this should be shown to all students at the earliest opportunity this term. He also wants to share the important message he has relating to the riots last month with parents and families ... The video can be found at http://www.vimeo.com/28512337 or from the diocesan website www.rcdow.org.uk"

I have not seen the video message, I am still minus sound on my pc so I cannot comment on how closely the text follows the video clip.

But one thing is certain, the letter should never have seen the light of day.

Summorum Pontificum - 4 years on and no change in Westminster

Today is the great feast of The Holy Cross and also the anniversary of Pope Benedict's Summorum Pontificum that came into force in September 2007.

The Exaltation of The Holy Cross
Rome style

Ask a Catholic man on the Clapham Omnibus what SP is and you will be met with a blank stare. Ask lots of Catholic men and women and you will receive more of the same.
Ask some priests and the success rate goes up a little but not by too much.

The fact is, the average Catholic appears to do little more than sit on the parish commissariat, read The Universe and go to the Novus Ordo Mass ( Nervous Disorder Mass as Stella Hook, a great Catholic, used to call it).

The writ of the Pope does not appear to be worth much in Great Britain today. How can the layman or woman be blamed for their ignorance if  the Bishops and priests appear not to hear what comes forth from Rome.

The status quo in Westminster Archdiocese has not altered, as far as I am aware, since 14th September 2007. EF Masses on a Sunday are still as rare as hen's teeth, and this is the lead Diocese of England and Wales.

 Blimey O'Reilly! What is Archbishop Nichols doing?

Shouldn't he be leading from the front when the Holy Father sends a message to the world?

4 years ago there were few EF Masses
in Rome - now they are plentiful.
Why can't Westminster do as they do
in Rome?

Why hasn't he put in place a priest training programme so that at least one third of his priests may learn how to celebrate an EF Mass? That is what the HF wants is it not?

And why hasn't the Archbishop sent an ad clerum to his clergy asking them to reinstate communion rails? That is what the HF wants is it not?

The talks between Rome and the SSPX begin today but I have a sinking feeling that they will come to nought. If the hierarchy cannot obey Pope Benedict's requests and guidance there is no future for such an orthodox order as the Society. They can see that the Church is still in the grips of modernism and who could blame them for not wishing to place their neck in the noose?

And for those who may wish to have the essence of SP refreshed, here is a brief extract:-

Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the 'Lex orandi' (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same 'Lex orandi,' and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church's Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church's 'Lex credendi' (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.

It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church. The conditions for the use of this Missal as laid down by earlier documents 'Quattuor abhinc annis' and 'Ecclesia Dei,' are substituted as follows...........

WE ADORE THEE O CHRIST  AND WE PRAISE THEE, BECAUSE BY THY HOLY CROSS THOU HAST REDEEMED THE WORLD

Woolly Mammoth found in Westminster Diocese!

A current phrase that is bandied around somewhat is "the elephant in the room" referring to a large problem or issue that overshadows all else.

Well, in Westminster Archdiocese they have a Woolly Mammoth in the room, frozen in time, long passed its sell by date ("use by 7th July 2007") and still no sign of the ice melting.

Mammuthus Westminsterii

I refer to the scandalous fact that, out of all the Diocese of England and Wales, only Westminster has not moved forward one step since the Holy Father's Motu Proprio regarding the responsibilities of the clergy in providing the Extraordinary Form of Mass wherever there was a demand.

Where may you attend an EF Mass in London (Westminster) on a Sunday?

The London Oratory 9am 

St James, Spanish Place 9.30am (thank you Fr Colven and the priest who comes to celebrate Mass each week (but please use a microphone)

St Edmund's, Ware (where?)

Holy Trinity and St Augustine, Baldock (one Sunday per month)

And that's it! Hardly a lavish offering, not exactly what Pope Benedict had in mind!

Westminster is small geographically but big in terms of Catholic population, it is a Diocese that includes the capital city of London - is that meagre offering good enough?

Let's just look at the profile and resources of Westminster.....

214 Parishes

417 secular priests

263 priests belonging to a religious order

49 - assorted others

That's a total of 729 priests!

Yet all that Archbishop Nichols can manage to provide is 3.25 EF Masses on a Sunday! Extraordinary! More than extraordinary it is a cause for scandal!

By my rough reckoning that makes the Sunday Mass score something like this:-

OF Masses circa................ 400

Homosexual Mass................. 1

EF Masses......................... 3.75

What are the Traditional Catholics of Westminster doing about it? Holding prayer vigils in the Piazza? Nope. Creating petitions to forward to Rome? Nope. Writing to the Papal Nuncio? Maybe.

As an ex Westminster Diocese Catholic I appeal for all to write to Archbishop Nichols in the first instance and then to Archbishop Mennini - perhaps then we can slice the Woolly Mammoth up and let the ice melt away for good.

Now is the time for Archbishop Nichols to end this disgrace

The battle between the Vaughan parents (who wish to retain an element of  input into the School's governance) and Westminster Diocese (who wish to impose autocratic rule without the benefit of Parent Governor counsel) now moves into its second year. Surely those in authority at Westminster must see that the honourable way for them to act is for them to do the right thing and allow the Vaughan Parents to have a say in the running of this excellent school (as is the norm at most decent schools).

The Cardinal Vaughan Action Group has circulated a press release on behalf of Professor Luke Gormally (no connection with the Vaughan's previous Headteacher) together with correspondence from Professor Gormally and Lord Lexden to Archbishop Nichols.

You may read the release and letters here:-

PRESS RELEASE.....................

An internationally-renowned Catholic academic has issued a strong rebuke to the Archbishop of Westminster over his treatment of the Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School, where parents are involved in a bitter dispute with the Diocese of Westminster, trustees of the school.

Professor Luke Gormally’s comments come in a long and frank letter to Archbishop Vincent Nichols about the Vaughan School, one of the best performing comprehensives in the country.

The Professor, a distinguished bio-ethicist and a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life, takes the Archbishop to task for refusing to allow parents of pupils in the school to be foundation governors, for deliberately reducing parents to an ineffective minority on the governing body and for imposing his own Director of Education, Paul Barber, as a school governor.

He says that if the Diocese wanted to encourage Catholic schools to provide a sound Catholic education, it would be “fostering the Vaughan model in other parts of the Diocese”. Instead, he says, it has “dismantled the kind of governance under which the Vaughan has flourished”.

The letter comes as pressure mounts on Archbishop Nichols to bring an end to the protracted row between parents at the Vaughan and the Diocese over the composition of the school’s governing body before a new Head is appointed in the autumn. The row is the subject of a legal case brought by the elected parent governors against the Diocese. It was also raised in the House of Lords in June by the Conservative peer, Lord Lexden. In response to Lord Lexden’s comments, the Government has said it will change the law so that in future there will be no doubt about the Diocese’s obligation to appoint parents with children in the school as foundation governors. But parents point out that this will not happen in time for the appointment of a new Head.

Professor Gormally goes on to say that the way the Archbishop is exercising his authority at the Vaughan is not supported by Church law, and that it flies in the face of the Pope’s own “communio” ecclesiology.

He argues that diocesan–imposed policies are encouraging the admission of children whose parents have little serious interest in their Catholic formation, but merely want to cash in on the school’s academic excellence.  And he says that loyalty to a bishop does not mean accepting a totalitarian uniformity in all things touching Catholic life.

Professor Gormally ends his letter by asking the Archbishop to consider whether using his authority to enforce diocesan education policy at the Vaughan is “truly an authentic exercise of episcopal authority, or whether it is not rather a ‘quenching of the spirit’ both in the lives of a precious group of Catholic parents serious about transmitting the faith and in the life of the Cardinal Vaughan School itself”.

LETTER FROM PROFESSOR GORMALLY TO ARCHBISHOP VINCENT NICHOLS

18 June 2011

Dear Archbishop Nichols,

The Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School

It is months since I wrote to you about the policy and actions of the Westminster Diocesan Education Service [WDES] in regard to the Vaughan School. You kindly replied, enclosing three documents, which you hoped I would be “good enough” to read. It has taken me some time to get round to giving them the attentive reading which I presumed they deserved. At the time your reply arrived I was preparing for a visit to the USA and since returning I have been fairly stretched editing a book-length manuscript for which I had a publisher’s deadline.

A careful reading of the documents Your Grace sent does not seem to provide the beginning of an answer to my earlier criticisms of WDES policy and actions in regard to the Vaughan School. To recall the essential points of criticism:

• Catholic parents who are serious about encouraging their children’s growth in the knowledge of the truths of the Faith and in its practice have few Catholic schools to which they can send their children with confidence. The Vaughan School has proved to be exemplary in meeting their need. I contrasted my own local Catholic comprehensive school in which the present head of RE is a non-Catholic, and her immediate predecessor was an atheist. It is that kind of school that requires the close attention of Mr Paul Barber if the WDES is to be regarded as serious about providing an authentic Catholic education for the children of the diocese and not just accumulating accolades from OFSTED.
• The exclusion of parents of current pupils from Governing Body positions which such parents have held in the past, and the deliberate reduction of parent Governors to an ineffective minority on the Governing Body, bids fair to destroy what was hitherto a key element in the success of the School: its close collaboration with parents which inspired great confidence in them and consequently in their children. The Vaughan Parents’ Action Group is not an unrepresentative body – it has very substantial support among parents. The recently reported refusal of the current Chairman of the Governing Body to meet them, allegedly on the orders of Bishop Stack, merely reinforces the message that parents are to be marginalised.

In response to these criticisms Your Grace sent me three documents:

1. Your own letter to parents of 8 December 2010.
2. Bishop Stack’s covering letter along with answers to ‘Some frequently asked questions’.
3. Bishop Hopes’ talk on ‘Catholic Ethos’ given to CVMS staff.

I’ll comment first on Bishop Hopes’ talk, evidently composed in consultation with the WDES, both because it is the most substantial document and because it seeks to make a principled case for the kind of exercise of episcopal authority experienced by the Vaughan School by reference both to Canon Law and to a ‘communio’ ecclesiology. What support for that case can be found in those sources?

If one looks at the sequence of canons on Catholic education (793 and following) what is striking is that the roles they expect civil society and ecclesiastical authority to play are subordinate to the fundamental requirement stated in the first canon, 793, §1:

Parents, and those who take their place, have both the obligation and the right to educate their children. Catholic parents have also the duty and the right to choose those means and institutes which, in their local circumstances, can best promote the Catholic education of their children.

Catholic parents who take that duty seriously are now excluded by Diocesan policy from exercising the right to at least seek admission to the Vaughan for their children. The combination of confined catchment area and minimalist criteria of Catholicity has the effect of facilitating admission to the School of children of parents with no serious interest in the Catholic formation of their children and merely a desire to take advantage of the academic excellence of the School. That is no way to value the importance for the life of the Church of parents who take seriously their responsibility to educate their children in the Faith. Does Canon Law validate the exercise of episcopal authority to impose WDES policy? It is certainly the case that Can.803, §1 states that “A Catholic school is to be understood to be one which is under the control of the competent ecclesiastical authority …” and Can.803, §3 states that “No school, even if it is in fact Catholic, may bear the title ‘Catholic school’ except by the consent of the competent ecclesiastical authority”. But what is the point of this control? The answer seems pretty clear from Canons 804-806: it is to ensure the authenticity of the teaching of the Faith and the reliability of the teachers entrusted with that task. The exercise of episcopal authority in this area, therefore, has as its validating purpose that of securing the right of Catholic parents to have access to an authentic Catholic education for their children. How can it be legitimate to exercise that authority by blocking access to a school which is relatively rare in providing such an education? Surely the attention of authority would be more appropriately directed to those schools which are conspicuously failing qua Catholic schools.

What case can be made for the current exercise of episcopal authority in relation to the Vaughan in terms of a ‘communio’ ecclesiology, for which communion with the diocesan bishop is an essential requirement of communion in the Church – a consideration which you invoke in your letter to parents, as if it required submission to the WDES policy? Well, communion with the diocesan bishop does not mean submission to a totalitarian uniformity in all things touching Catholic life. Episcopal authority is most properly exercised to ensure the authentic teaching of the Catholic faith and the authentic celebration of the sacraments, in particular the Eucharist; so it is needed, for example and most importantly, to suppress any sacrilegious celebrations of the Eucharist. The following observations of one of the outstanding theologians of a ‘communio’ ecclesiology seem to me very apposite in relation to the Vaughan situation:

Like the pope, the bishop and the bishops’ conference ought to impose in their sphere only as much human law as is truly needed above and beyond the sacred law rooted in the sacramental principle. They, too, must beware of reduction to uniformity in their work as pastors. They, too, must hold to the rules prescribed by St Paul: ‘Do not extinguish the Spirit … test everything, retain what is good’ (I Th 5:19, 21). They, too, must not pursue uniformity in their pastoral planning but must leave room for the doubtless often troublesome multiplicity of God’s gifts – always, of course, under the criterion of unity of faith. No more human forms ought to be added to this criterion than are required for peaceable living and harmonious co-existence. [Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Called to Communion. Understanding the Church Today (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1996), pp.100-101.]

God’s gift of the Vaughan School as it flourished in close collaboration with parents and parent Governors may not fit the prevailing ideology of the WDES; no plausible case has yet been made in terms of a ‘communio’ ecclesiology for the exercise of episcopal authority to impose dismantling of the kind of governance under which the Vaughan flourished. If the WDES had its sights set on encouraging Catholic schools to provide a sound Catholic education it would be fostering the Vaughan model in other parts of the diocese.

Your Grace’s assurances in your letter to parents of your confidence that the present Governing Body of the School is committed to maintaining its Catholic character and academic, musical and sporting excellence are bound to ring somewhat hollow for many of those parents. The transformation that has been wrought in the Governing Body has had the effect of marginalising what has been a central factor in the School’s past success: the collaboration of parents. Moreover, the selection of Foundation Governors has resulted in the election of a Chairman of Governors who already chairs the Governing Body of a school which manifestly fails to attract as a Catholic school. It also appears significant that, at one point, the new Governing Body declined to consider, among others, applicants from the present staff of the School for appointment as Headmaster. This looks like further evidence of the desire to destroy the ethos of the School, since those applicants would possess a valuable inwardness with its ethos and traditions.

I shall omit consideration of Bishop Stack’s letter and its attachment: they don’t begin to address in adequate terms the fundamental questions raised in this letter, which concern the proper exercise of the pastoral authority of a bishop. I beg Your Grace to consider whether the invocation of your authority to enforce what the WDES has done and is doing at the Vaughan truly is an authentic exercise of episcopal authority or whether it is not rather a ‘quenching of the Spirit’ both in the lives of a precious group of Catholic parents serious about transmitting the faith (God knows, such parents do not exist in vast numbers in the diocese) and in the life of the Cardinal Vaughan School.

With the renewed promise of my prayers for your ministry and with all good wishes,

Yours respectfully and sincerely,

Luke Gormally.

LETTER FROM LORD LEXDEN TO ARCHBISHOP VINCENT NICHOLS

(Transcribed)

 

4th August 2011


Your Grace

I am one of a very large number of people - Protestants as well as Catholics - who are deeply distressed by the crisis that has brought the Westminster Diocese into heart-rending conflict with so many parents and pupils at The Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School. I am an Anglican and therefore have no family connections with the school, but I have long admired it for its remarkable achievements.

After reflecting carefully on the issues at the centre of this terrible crisis , I felt that I had to give my support to the Vaughan Parents' Action Group. I am now one of the Group's patrons.

In June, I spoke in the House of Lords about the need for action to safeguard the legitimate interests of parents with children at the school. Shortly afterwards, the Government made clear that it intended to amend the law.

The change will require those responsible for those appointing parents as Foundation Governors to choose them from among parents who have children at the school. Only if that is impossible for some reason will other parents be eligible for consideration.

The Diocese now has a great opportunity to heal the wounds inflicted during the protracted dispute. It could do this by anticipating what is to come and nominating two current parents as Foundation Governors immediately.

Even more effective in the healing process would be a declaration by the Diocese that, during the forthcoming selection procedures to find a new Head, its nominees will work to find a concensus that unites the Governing Body as a whole, ending this sad period of division and bitterness unworthy of a  Christian institution.

I hope you will be able to respond positively to these proposals which I intend to raise in Parliament in due course. In view of the widespread public interest in making rapid progress in the governance of this outstanding school, I  intend to release this letter to the press on 8 August. I am also sending a copy to the Secretary of State for Education.

(signed)

Alistair Lexden

What more can be said other than it is long overdue for Westminster to issue an apology and to agree to the parents' requests gracefully.

Failure to comply will only result in more scandal for the Church, disaffected Catholics throughout the country and a resounding defeat for the Archbishop. No one wants that; but they do want their legitimate rights.

You have ten seconds to choose between Heaven and Hell!

The clock is ticking and you HAVE to make a choice.....the right choice gets you to Heaven, the wrong one sends you to the other place.

Here are your options......get it right and you are made for (eternal life).......

Option 1.

Do you agree that Westminster Diocese was wrong to ban a Catholic lay organisation (Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice) from holding a guest speaker event on Westminster Diocesan premises?         

Option 2.

Do you agree that Westminster Diocese was wrong to allow an organisation for homosexuals (Quest) to hold a meeting on Westminster Diocesan premises?

Which option will you say "yes" to............................

I think I know.........see you all in Heaven!

H/T to Counter Cultural Father The Sensible Bond and to Catholic and Loving it

Smart lad wanted as Headteacher of what we hope will become a bog standard secondary school with low outcomes and no Catholic ethos

I remember, back in the days when I did an honest days work, advertising for a new Principal for a College of Further Education. Due to our location, in wildest Pembrokeshire, we attracted a somewhat challenging postbag of applicants.
There was the chap who wanted 'above all else to be in the beautiful Pembrokeshire countryside and walk my dog on the beaches' - err....no way!
Then there was Craig, manager of the local wholesale carpet store 'Offcuts going cheap' who felt that he had had enough of the retail business and its long hours and fancied working in education because of the long holidays. I am still not sure if I was being wound up or not.

The bottom line and moral of the story is - it is not easy to recruit high quality applicants, especially into the education sector, but this is the task that Westminster Diocese has set itself, presumably in line with its new plans for the Cardinal Vaughan School....What? The Diocese has NO plans for the School? You must be joking, what kind of a omadhaun  person said that? Oh, the current School Governor...'nuff said.

Well that might narrow the field somewhat; you can just imaging the interview scenario....."Well Mrs (sorry Ms) Dullas-Ditchwater, could you please tell us how you plan to lower our results and reduce the school's Catholic ethos?"

"Well yer reverences I think that we can dispense with morning prayers, in fact, prayer of any kind is so discriminatory so it can all go, and we can disband that bunch of kids who think they can sing like angels, I'd replace them with a massed band of recorders backed up by a Caribbean steel drum quartet - that's pretty multi culchural ain't it? My next move would be to form an LGBT group so as we can call ourselves multi sexual, I think that the Arch would like that.
Then I'd do away with interviewing prospective pupils and asking them if they are practising Catholics or not - I like to consider meself an equal opportunites sort of person, especially as far as non Catholics and non Christians are concerned and then as far as the curricul...curriccull...you knows what I mean, the educashional programme; I'd introduce some really good sex ed stuff that I picked up in Soho last week and maybe even have a few modules on how to determine yer sexuality from the gay point of view. How's that fer starters?

"Well, Ms Dullas-Ditchwater, you have astounded the panel with what you have told us - the job's your Darling - when can you begin?"

Westminster Diocese bottles out of meeting

In all things to love and serve - but not as far
 as Westminster Diocese is concerned!

A good opportunity to build bridges or, at least to put their point of view across to parents of Cardinal Vaughan School pupils was lost last Monday night when Westminster Diocese decided against representation at an open meeting held to discuss the way ahead.

You do not need to employ a PR guru or to have any depth of knowledge regarding inter personal skills to understand that the Diocese (and Archbishop Nichols) are on the hind foot and have been in that position for some time.
Someone close to his Grace needs the courage to tell him that they are in a situation where, whatever  the final outcome, they just cannot win. In brief, when in a hole you should stop digging!

The Vaughan Parents were disappointed at the 'no show' by Westminster Diocese - here is their report of the meeting:-

"Monday night’s meeting between parents and governors, so long requested and so often denied, was a cause for both celebration and disappointment:  celebration because parents left governors in no doubt about their unity and passionate commitment to their children’s School, but disappointment at the lost opportunity to build bridges and move forward, because of the absence of any diocesan representation at the meeting.

The meeting had been advertised as an opportunity for parents to ask questions, both of the Governing Body and the Diocese, about decisions concerning the governance of the School and plans for its future direction.  Over 400 parents attended and took the opportunity to demonstrate their enthusiastic support, both for their elected parent governors and for the staff, represented by acting Head, Charles Eynaud and Deputy Head, Paul Stubbings.  Parents asked probing questions, principally of the Chairman of Governors, John O’Donnell.

Apart from the Diocese’s regrettable decision not to send an official representative, foundation governors Paul Barber (Diocesan Director of Education), Monsignor James Curry (Archbishop’s representative on the Governing Body) and newly appointed Kate Griffin (member of the Executive Board of the Catholic Education Service) were also absent.  This meant that there was no one who could answer with authority any question about overall policy or more detailed questions about why some foundation governors had been removed and others appointed.  The other absentee was Ike Offiah, one of the two foundation governors retrospectively designated as a “parent”, although he has no child in the School.

In attendance were foundation governors Rita Biddulph, Michael Craven, Gerry Kelly,  Bwalya Kwanga, Rory O’Hare and Mary Waplington, the other designated “parent” (with no child in the School), as well as elected parent governors James King, Jackie Knight, John Murphy  Andrzej Rumun and Janusz Zajaczkowski, and local authority governor, Sir Adrian FitzGerald.

Mr O’Donnell’s explanation that diocesan officials could not be present because the parent governors’ legal action against the Diocese remained unresolved prompted a question from a parent:  if the ongoing nature of the legal action was sufficient to prevent diocesan attendance at this meeting, why was it not sufficient to halt the process of appointing a new Head?  Mr O’Donnell replied that, because the appointment of a new Head was Governing Body business, it could proceed.

In answer to a question, Mr O’Donnell said that the process of appointing a new Head had stalled earlier in the year, because the “field was not strong enough”; his attempted assurance that “the search for an outstanding Head teacher continues” elicited a shout of “He’s behind you!” from the back of the Hall, to much laughter and tumultuous applause (Mr Eynaud and Mr Stubbings were sitting on the platform behind Mr O’Donnell).

Many of the pre-submitted questions, a list of which was circulated at the start of the meeting, were directed to the expected diocesan representative. Mr O’Donnell answered a question about the Diocese’s future plans for the School by saying, “The Diocese has no plans for the School”; this was greeted by disbelief.

A parent took the meeting through the Diocese’s actions since the beginning of the current dispute:  referral of its admission arrangements to the Office of the Schools Adjudicator, replacement of seven foundation governors (including two Chairmen of Governors) in two years, refusal to appoint current parents as foundation governors, objections to music scholarships, refusal to meet parents.  He concluded, “And you expect us to believe that the Diocese has no hidden agenda for the School?”  This was warmly applauded.

VPAG Chairman, Anna Brown, said, “We were delighted that so many parents cared enough to attend this meeting, called at relatively short notice at such a busy time of the school year.  A high proportion had questions to ask, and their support for the elected parent governors and the staff was wonderful to see.  It was gratifying to note that, when they were asked, on a show of hands, whether there was any opposition to the activities of the VPAG, only two hands were raised.

“We hope the Governing Body will take away from this meeting, and communicate to the Diocese, the absolute determination of Vaughan parents to preserve the ethos, traditions and standards of the School.  We call on the Archbishop, in anticipation of the government’s announced intention to amend the regulations, to appoint now two parents of pupils currently on the School roll.  We ask him also to use his good offices to bring this sad dispute to an end, by advising his foundation governors to ensure that a Head is appointed who will command support from all sections of the Governing Body.”

PLEASE NOTE: If you would like to sign the petition in support of the School Parents here it is http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/save-cardinal-vaughan-memorial-school.html

Vaughan goes on the attack with online petition

Lose its Catholic identity?
Not in my name!

There must be a certain air of satisfaction in the Vaughan Parents camp, not smug satisfaction but a modicum of relief and joy that the House of Lords has stepped in on their side (and against Archbishop Nichols and his team).

Maybe, even, a scent of blood, victory in the distance and a good Catholic School saved from mediocrity inflicted by the left. But that part is still in the distance and more help is needed, not just from Londoners but from those in Wigan, Kirkcaldy, Cork and even Milan and Chicago (got the point? wherever you are please help this good school stay true to its Catholic ethos).

   WHAT CAN YOU DO? - JUST SIGN THE PETITION (PLEASE)

Here it is - http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/save-cardinal-vaughan-memorial-school.html

A great priest who disobeyed his Bishop!

Not just once but several times according to his autobiography. He was, arguably, the last of the traditional Cardinals of England & Wales; he was frequently fighting the cause of Catholic conservatism on a wide range of television programmes, he criticised the USA for being too fixated with communism and not attentive enough to spiritual affairs and he also made the famous riposte to his aide, the then Monsignor Bruce Kent who had, upon driving past a socialist poster, said to the Cardinal: "Better red than dead". "Oh no", came the reply from the Cardinal: "Better dead than red."

He recognised the pitfalls that were opening up after the Second Vatican Council and again made the famous comment (about the Novus Ordo after witnessing the new Mass in Rome): 

"At home it is not only women and children but also fathers of families and young men who come regularly to mass. If we were to offer them the kind of ceremony we saw yesterday in the Sistine Chapel we would soon be left with a congregation mostly of women and children."

So who is this man who, as a priest disobeyed his Bishop and what were the circumstances under which he did so?

It is, of course, none other than Cardinal John Carmel Heenan, Archbishop of Westminster.

I find it intriguing that, as a parish priest, he actually went against the will of his Bishop especially as so many priests today give the reason for not celebrating the EF Mass as being due to episcopal obedience: "The Bishop would never approve".
Never mind that Rome has spoken on the subject!

Here are the circumstances in which Fr Heenan found himself. The Second World War had just come to an end and his London East End parish of Barking had felt the full force of the blitz. Everywhere one looked there was ruin and desolation, whole terraces of houses now reduced to a pile of rubble, hospitals, community centres, churches and schools lay in ruins. And Fr Heenan's Catholic School was among the casualties. He set out with typical vigour, to rebuild the school and build up his scattered flock but his Bishop, being a man of bureacratic leanings, was not in favour of the parish priest's plans.
Here is an extract from the Cardinal's autobiography, covering this episode in his life:-

"...Before the Far Eastern end of the war was over the rebuilding of the bombed school had begun. It was a heartening sight. I was not worried about paying for the building because war damage claims would eventually cover most of the cost. I merely had to borrow a few thousand pounds to keep the contractors happy until 'the war damage' (the colloquialism for the government department concerned) paid the bill. I wrote happily to the bishop for leave to borrow five thousand pounds. He refused on the grounds that I should not have begun to rebuild the school without having submitted the plans to him. He would not authorise me to borrow any money. The building must be stopped forthwith. I wrote in great alarm to the bishop to explain that the building was only a replacement of the damaged section of the school. Strictly speaking, there were no new plans to submit. The bishop was not moved.

It is hard to exaggerate my dilemma. If I obeyed the bishop it might prove impossible to bring back the contractors when the bishop had seen the light. There was, in addition, the devastating effect on public relations with East Ham Borough - as well as the blow to the morale of the teachers, parents, children and the neighbours who, after all the bombing were delightedly watching a building going up rather than down. I did not know what to do. I had never defied the bishop despite all trials but this time I could see no alternative.
Reluctantly I took the bishop's letter forbidding me to borrow the money to the Apostolic Delegate whom I had known both at Ushaw and in Rome. I asked him quite simply to tell me what I must do. I was aware of the principle that it is always safe to obey but I did not see how in this case the principle could apply.
I had come to the Apostolic Delegate because I was genuinely in doubt about my duty. To my relief - and somewhat to my surprise since Mgr Godfrey was an ultra-cautious man - the Delegate's reply was unhesitating. He added that for some time he had been receiving reports of the bishop's increasing loss of contact with affairs.
It was true that I could now go ahead without scruple......"

I admire people who kick against the traces and take a risk for the common good. We need more politicians, teachers and doctors who are prepared to chance their arm in undertaking initiatives aimed at improving the lot of man......and we certainly need more priests and bishops who will do so!

The extract is from 'Not the Whole Truth'

Government blows a hole in Archbishop's plan for the Vaughan

Essex Peer
Lord Lexden

The House of Lords, thanks to a fairly new peer, Lord Lexden (Alistair Cooke as was) has come out in support of the Cardinal Vaughan Parents' Action Group and stated that it is the right of parents to appoint Foundation Governors, not the Diocese of Westminster.

Here is the full story from the Save the Vaughan website:

"We are delighted to announce that the Government has intervened to help us in our campaign to appoint current parents in the school as Foundation Governors.

 

We believe that the Catholic Diocese of Westminster has, in effect, gerrymandered the Governing Body by refusing to appoint parents of children in the school as Foundation Governors and filling it with placemen instead. We have always maintained this is against the law. One judge in the Court of Appeal strongly upheld our view, but the other two said the Diocese's interpretation that "parent foundation governors" in the regulations did not have to be Cardinal Vaughan parents, was lawful. Following this split decision, we asked for the government to intervene.   

 

Our request was backed in the House of Lords (June 14) by Lord Lexden, - a patron of the Cardinal Vaughan Parents' Action Group. He said clarification of the law was needed to protect parents' choice and rights. In his speech during the second reading of the Education Bill, Lord Lexden said this:

vigilance is needed in protecting choice and rights which parents have long enjoyed. I have recently drawn one specific cause of concern to the attention of my noble friend the Minister in my role as a patron of a campaign organised by parents of the Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School in London. Parents with children at the school are being denied their proper role on its governing body by the Roman Catholic diocesan authorities. This is a case which has implications for all 4,000 voluntary-aided schools in England. The law needs to be clarified. I hope that, either in Committee or through some other means, the Government will be able to set out their view.

Now the education minister, Lord Hill, in a letter to Lord Lexden, says he intends to amend the school governance regulations The effect of this amendment will be to remove all doubt that the requirement on appointing bodies to include 'parents' as Foundation Governors means parents of children currently in the school, except where none is available to serve. A consultation period on the implementation of the amendment will begin at the start of the Autumn term.

The Diocese has gone to extraordinary lengths to keep Vaughan parents off the Governing Body and so shut them out from crucial decisions on the future of this outstanding school. The Archbishop and his advisers have shamelessly exploited an apparent loophole in the law. We don't understand why the Diocese has been at such pains to exclude us, but we believe that it has in mind changes to Cardinal Vaughan which no parent there would want.

We welcome Lord Hill's intervention as a breakthrough for parents’ rights. We would like to thank our patrons for their invaluable support and encouragement.

But our work is not over.

This development represents a very important step for our campaign. But the law will not come into effect straight away. 

For this reason we ask you now to appeal respectfully to Archbishop Nichols to appoint two current parent foundation governors immediately - before the appointment of a new Head in the Autumn. It is essential that everyone has confidence that the Governing Body is correctly constituted before it undertakes this most important task. Archbishop Nichols has the power to do this. He is clearly, in our view, morally obliged to do it. Please help us to make sure that he does it.

The Archbishop can be contacted by email at archbishop@rcdow.org.uk or by post at Archbishop’s House, Ambrosden Avenue, London SW1P 1QJ.

We would be interested to see copies of your letter and any replies you receive.

We will be posting more important news, in the next few days".

If the Archbishop wishes to salvage something out of this wreck he should quit now and back down gracefully; he would engender a deal of respect as a result.

Story also featured by Damian Thompson.

The Archbishop's worst nightmare - The Vaughan parents carry on the fight!

Just when Archbishop Nichols thought it was safe to go back into the water and get on with tackling the London Oratory School and its avowed intent to screen parents of prospective pupils to determine whether they are real or post code Catholics; the Cardinal Vaughan Parents' Action Group has announced resumption of its fight to elect Foundation Governors of parental choice rather than the choice of the Diocese.

Now, climbing down is always hard; it must be very hard for an Archbishop but that is what his advisors should be telling him to do. Look at the facts, ++ Nichols now has two of the Country's best, most Catholic schools lined up in direct opposition to him. They do not care whether their pupils are sons and daughters of the great and the good (or politicians), they are not worried about how much Papa has in the bank. What they are concerned with is maintaining the Catholic ethos of their school and continuing to achieve magnificent results.
They could not give a toss at the prospect of little Leo Blair joining their ranks - their policy is to be open to all who are practising their faith. Good!
The function of a Diocese is to provide for the spiritual management of their Catholic population; the function of a Catholic school is to operate utilising the skills and experiences of its staff and supporters in accord with Catholic beliefs. Education Departments (of any kind) rarely have the skills of a current, senior teacher or Deputy Head. Yes, I know that Westminster's Education Department is staffed with ex teachers but, in this fast moving world it is no longer valid to say that your experience was gained in the 1980s - the education world has changed! Things have moved on....we have computers, whiteboards, learning resource centres........

Here is the letter from the CVPAG:-

Dear Parents, Staff and Friends of the Vaughan
 We have decided to continue our fight for the appointment of two Vaughan parents as Foundation Governors on the Vaughan Governing Body, so today we lodged papers with the Supreme Court requesting leave to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal.  If we are granted permission the following, and final, step will be to take the case to the Supreme Court.

Whilst we lost in the Court of Appeal on a split vote (two judges found against us, one for) we remain convinced that the interpretation of the law made by Sir Richard Buxton is what was intended by the law makers. Whilst the drafting of the legislation has clearly been shown to be open to interpretation we firmly believe that the spirit of the law is with us.

The Governing Body Today

As we stated in our last communication, and as noted in the minutes of the Governing Body meeting of 2 February, available on the Vaughan website, if the Foundation Governors decide that they want to pass a motion not only can they hide behind anonymity but they can also hide behind the non-disclosure of the voting pattern - no record of the votes are recorded, a simple “majority” is noted. 

The block vote of the 11 Foundation Governors can, and will, pass any motion they desire.  This remains a concern for us in the appointment of a new head teacher and over the coming years for the future of the school.

We do not know what the diocese intends for the school and it is about time that those concerned were open with us all.

The Communication on the Diocesan Website

Whilst we do not want to go in for a tit for tat with the diocese, we would like to counter some of the misleading and disingenuous claims made by Bishop Stack on the diocesan web site, claims that seek to achieve the moral high ground.

·        “Like the

Appeal Court

, we regret the wasteful court action brought against the Archbishop of Westminster by a number of parents associated with the Vaughan Parents Action Group”.  Firstly, the action was taken by the elected Parent Governors; the Vaughan Parents’ Action Group came into being after the action had been initiated in order to support the Parent Governors.  We remain indebted to this support.  Secondly, we also regret the need to have pursued this course of action.  It was however, necessary because the diocese would not appoint two existing parents as Foundation Governors

·        “It is important to note that the ‘Vaughan Parents Action Group’ is not supported by the School. It is not to be confused with the Vaughan Parents Association, which is the recognised parents’ association. Rather it is a campaign whose leaders include two former Governors of the school and the former Headmaster”. One characteristic that the diocese has demonstrated over recent years is that anyone who does not obey is “dealt with”.  For two Chairs of the Governing Body and four other Foundation Governors this meant being replaced when their term was complete irrespective of their wishes to continue to serve the school.  The Parent Governors took the specific decision not to compromise members of staff of the school for fear of retribution on them.  Likewise all communication from the Vaughan Parents’ Association goes through the school, so a separate sub-committee was established.

Next Steps

Despite requests from the Parent Governors at each of the 3 Governing Body meetings this academic year, the Governing Body by virtue of the Foundation Governor majority vote is still refusing to meet with parents.  We will make this same request at the forthcoming Governing Body meeting.

You may have noted the recent departure from the Governing Body of Fr Michael Johnston who was appointed in September.  We would ask the diocese to show some goodwill and now appoint a parent as a Foundation Governor.  Actions speak louder than words.

Finally, and once again, we wish to thank parents and friends for your overwhelming support of our action.  Without your help and generous funding we would not have been able to take this action through the courts.  We are particularly grateful to the Vaughan Parents’ Association and the Vaughan Parents’ Action Group for their ongoing, tireless and very effective support.  

The Parent Governors:

·        Dr Jim King

·        Mrs Jackie Knight

·        Mr John Murphy

·        Mr Andrzej Rumun

·        Mr Janusz Zajaczkowski

12 May 2011