Wed 16th Apr 2014 | Last updated: Wed 16th Apr 2014 at 12:20pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Comment & Blogs

Secularist attacks on the Catholic faith get worse, on both sides of the Atlantic: here it’s the TUC; in the US (where at least there’s a fightback) it’s Obama

Now, Mother Angelica has drawn her sword: watch out!

By on Monday, 27 February 2012

Mother Angelica is taking on Obama over the contraceptive mandate (CNS photo)

Mother Angelica is taking on Obama over the contraceptive mandate (CNS photo)

The gulf widens, between the secular culture and the Catholic faith: and as it does so, committed secularists are becoming more and more inclined (especially where some aspect of Catholic belief to do with sexuality or “sexual identity” is concerned) aggressively to attack the faith and – where the secular law can plausibly be invoked – attempt to have this aspect of faith declared actually illegal.

I have two current stories, one on either side of the great pond. On this side of the Atlantic, no less a person than Brendan Barber, General Secretary of the Trade Union Congress (TUC), has written to the Education Secretary, Michael Gove, complaining that a booklet containing “homophobic material” had been distributed at Roman Catholic schools in the Lancaster diocese.

The booklet concerned – “Pure Manhood: How to become the man God wants you to be” by the American Catholic apologist Jason Evert, who spoke recently in Catholic schools throughout the diocese promoting chastity in accordance with Church teaching – claims that “scientifically speaking, safe sex is a joke” (this is true: condoms rupture: all that can be claimed is that sex using condoms is “safer”). The booklet also expounds what you may find explained in any number of Catholic books and document including the Catechism of the Catholic Church (does Mr Barber want to ban teaching from that in schools, I wonder?) – that “the homosexual act is disordered, much like contraceptive sex between heterosexuals. Both acts are directed against God’s natural purpose for sex – babies and bonding.”

Invoking the Equality Act 2010, which prohibits discrimination against individuals, Barber wrote to Mr Gove in December insisting that “schools now have a legal duty to challenge all forms of prejudice. Such literature undermines this completely.” Michael Gove replied: “The education provisions of the Equality Act 2010 which prohibit discrimination against individuals based on their protected characteristics (including their sexual orientation) do not extend to the content of the curriculum. Any materials used in sex and relationship education lessons, therefore, will not be subject to the discrimination provisions of the act.”

So, for the time being, our schools are safe from the likes of Mr Barber. But we have not heard the end of this one. One day, there will be another Labour government: and those who remember Ed Balls’s appalling Education Bill, (which would have required Catholic schools to teach children how to “access” contraception and abortion) – a Bill which fell at the election, having been opposed by the Tories but, shamefully, not by our own bishops – will not be confident that we are safe for the future. Those who form public opinion in these areas are already sharpening their knives. The quangocrat Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission has said that religious rules should be left “at the door of the temple” and that religious institutions should give way to the “public law” laid down by Parliament. “Once you start to provide public services that have to be run under public rules,” he said, “then it has to go with public law.”

The latest American secularist onslaught against the Church, of course, is Obama’s recent edict that under his administration’s healthcare reform any provider of health care (including Catholic institutions) must be prepared to supply artificial contraception (including drugs which, though labelled contraceptive, are in fact abortifacient). I have recently written about this more than once. I now do so again to bring up to date anyone who has missed it, with one particular skirmish in the US Catholic fightback, that led by the redoubtable (and entirely admirable) Mother Angelica, founder of EWTN, who is now taking the fight against Obama to the courts.

You will remember that Obama tried to pacify Catholic resistance by saying that it won’t now be the Catholic institution involved who has to provide contraception: it will be their insurers. Yes, but who pays the insurer? It just won’t wash. Michael Warsaw, the chief executive officer of EWTN, was allowed an opinion piece slot in the New York Times to explain why EWTN was going to fight this in the courts on constitutional grounds:

Earlier this month, in response to widespread opposition to the mandate, the president announced an “accommodation” for some religious organisations – like, potentially, EWTN – that would shift the responsibility for the coverage from the employer to the employer’s insurance carrier.

But this would do nothing to solve the problem. First, EWTN self-insures, so we are the insurer. Second, even if we had an outside insurer, we would still be in the untenable position of facilitating access to drugs that go against our beliefs. And if we refused to comply with the directive, we could be hit with annual fines starting at around $600,000.

The administration’s supporters say that by opposing the rule, religious employers like EWTN are guilty of trying to coerce our employees and impose our values on them. But we are simply choosing not to participate in the use of these drugs. Our 350 employees, many of whom are not Catholic, freely choose to work here and can purchase and use contraception if they want to….

Instead, it is the government – which does not accept EWTN’s religious choice and can punish that choice by imposing fines – that is coercing us. But under the Constitution and federal religious liberties law, we cannot be forced to give up our beliefs as the price of participation in the public square. That is why the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty has filed a lawsuit on our behalf seeking to overturn this illegal mandate.

Watch this space, and how. This one is going to run and run. And with a bit of luck, Obama is going to lose. I have an interest to declare here: I have more than once appeared on EWTN and been deeply impressed by the whole dynamic set up. It’s from institutions like this that the renewal and future growth of the Catholic Church will come, and I don’t just mean in the US.

And now this splendid institution has declared war on the President. Mother Angelica versus Barack Obama: an epic struggle, or what? And this isn’t just a battle for the survival of a particular Catholic institution. It’s a battle for the faith against everything that is corrupt and bullying in the modern world. We mustn’t just hope that EWTN wins; we must earnestly pray for it; for, this is our battle too.

  • Anonymous

    ‘Homophobia’.  The last refuge of a defeated argument.

  • Chris

    Unfortunately, here in the U.S., too many of the liberal Catholics whose votes President Obama needs have bought into the lie that his “accommodation” solves the issue. A lot of people see the issue as having been solved, and that isn’t remotely true. We need to pray that American Catholics start using their heads again, and fight until this ridiculous mandate is entirely rescinded.

  • Anonymous

    The actual number is 40, spread over the period 1950-2000.
    I don’t know how many of those were acquitted without charge.

  • Anonymous

    “The Catholic Church has a big fight (hopefully symbolic and not literal) on it’s hands for the souls of mankind.”

    So what else is news?  Where have you been for the last 2000 years?

  • Anonymous

    “The bishops in the US are trying to force non-Catholics…”

    Dear oh dear!  What utter, utter nonsense!
    The Church has the duty to express the gospel of Christ to all men.  They can accept that gospel or they can reject it.  They have the free will and freedom of choice to decide, as God wills them to have.
    Catholic also have the freedom of choice to reject the immoral provisions contained in the proposed HHS legislation.  The Caesar in the White House must render to God the things that are God’s, and those things are determined by the Catholic Church and no other.

  • http://twitter.com/ravenhairedmaid Amy Jordan

    Alan,

    “everybody has something or other that they object to their taxes being spent on ”

    I understand your objection, but unfortunately the point has been completely missed.

    How many of those objections are direct tenets of people’s faith?
    This is about Constitutional freedom of religion & practice thereof, which the state has no right to curtail in this case.  Therefore, it goes against the tenets of our own government to mandate these tenets against the Catholic faith.  Make no mistake, this is not even remotely about “health care,” this is about making the state a supreme authority, which can only lead to tyranny.  I’ve posted an article that elaborates further on the logistics of this wholly unethical mandate, but the final sentence effectively sums it up: 

    “The fundamental problem with the mandate is that it coerces some people into doing what they think is wrong, and this problem remains regardless of whether the coercion excuses the actions of the people being coerced.” 
    http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/02/4817

    Finally, it’s important to note that contraception/sterilization/abortions are not ”health care,” that’s just a moniker the state is using to fool the masses into supporting it.  There are extremely rare cases where such procedures are indeed for a person’s health, and Catholic institutions are already providing them for those reasons. 

  • http://twitter.com/ravenhairedmaid Amy Jordan

    Teaching that homosexual behavior is wrong is not homophobia.  Just ask the homosexual members of the Church who have chosen to be faithful to her teaching. 

    You should begin asking yourself why you would make such a prejudiced assumption.  Is it because it’s “trendy” and you’ve been told to persecute people who have believed homosexual behavior is wrong but have lived & let live for over 2000 years?
    What does that say about who the true bigots are?

  • Brian A. Cook

     The sad fact is that the Nazi government really did eliminate homosexual persons AND Nazi propaganda drew upon anti-Jewish ideas within Christian culture.  Liberals look at facts like that and draw the conclusion that the Church is part and parcel of the Holocaust–though I do understand and accept that many elements within the Church opposed Nazism. 

  • Brian A. Cook

     Unfortunately, some people on this thread have argued Christendom, understood in the sense of state religion and giving the Church early power, leads to corruption of the faith.  Can you address their arguments?

  • Anonymous

    You seem just to be selecting a couple incidents that serve to illustrate your idea, and don’t seem to appreciate the larger picture. First, let me ask what you mean when you say, “the Church is no longer believable.” What do you mean by Church? In the largest sense, the Church is the “bride of Christ,” not merely the bishops or other leaders. Human leaders can always fail, as we see clearly in the New Testament itself, where, to give just one example, Peter betrays Jesus.

    Pius XII’s role in WWII is controversial and perhaps less than ideal, but it’s not anything that discredits the Church itself (as long as you properly understand what the Church actually is). It’s very easy to sit around, 60 years later, and criticize a man who had real responsibilities in a very trying time.

    The Nazis were not reasonable people you could negotiate with in a civil manner. They were violent thugs who took offense very easily… I HIGHLY doubt that you would have done any better in his situation. Some of the choices he made were perhaps unwise, but your simplistic condemnations are asinine at best. 

    For example, here: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/piusdtoc.html

    gives many examples of Jews who were immensely grateful for the help provided by Pius XII. Some of them in fact praise him specifically for NOT speaking out publicly against the Nazis, because that would have resulted in reprisals against them. History is not as simplistic as you seem to believe.

    “Catholic doctrine is no different than other witchdoctor practices that are abundant throughout the world”

    This is another example of fairly childish simplification. Where to start… well, what exactly is a “witchdoctor?” Was Thomas Aquinas a witchdoctor? How about St. Francis or Mother Theresa?  According to the OED, a witchdoctor is “One who professes to cure disease and to counteract witchcraft by magic arts.” If that is what you think, for example, the Catholic Mass is about, then perhaps it is your own understanding that is somewhat primitive, and not Catholicism?  Do you really not appreciate the decidedly moral and philosophical themes in Catholicism that clearly distinguish it from witchcraft, not to mention the countless universities founded by the Church? Are you being serious here or just trolling?

  • Anonymous

    “Are you being serious here or just trolling?”

    Monsieur Gavroche is just trolling.  Il est troll.

  • Jpepe

    I think your numbers are wrong, it is 0.4%.

  • Anonymous

    The General Secretary of the TUC, Mr Brendan Barber, is a supporter of Everton FC.
    Some people have the strangest ideas.

  • Fr D

    M

    M

  • Fr David

    Madam, As an orthodox, celibate Catholic priest (of 32 years) who also
    happens to be homosexual, I find your insinuation that the majority of child
    abusers are homosexual to be not only inaccurate, but offensive. Whilst it is
    true that most priests guilty of sexual abuse have perpetrated this heinous
    activity against boys, the vast majority of children who have been sexually
    abused are actually girls, and the perpetrators are almost always family members.
    Incidentally, your 1.4% of priests should be 0.4%.

  • VIRTUSOPHIA

    GOD BLESS MOTHER ANGELICA!!!!

  • 1emaqp

    In the USA, people can work for the organization or company they wish.  If they don’t like the benefits offered at one place, they can work elsewhere.
    They can also purchase their own sexual items in any drug store.  Why should we all have to pay for your sexual habits and beliefs?

    The US Constitution clearly states:  Bill of Rights, Article I – ” Congress shall  make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;  or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; . . . ”

    Obama is violating the US Constitution by trying to force Catholics to pay for things considered a mortal sin ( this belief can be proven in the “Catechism of the Catholic Church).

    In the USA, people can not and do not vote to take away the rights of others.
    There are no manipulative old men in the Vatican.  Being a Catholic is a priviledge, and no one is forced into belonging to this or any other Church in the USA.

  • ANNE

    Most true Catholics do not support secularism or relativism.

    Secularism is an indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations.

    Relativism is a theory that truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.

    For those who want to be Catholic – the Catholic Church is not a salad bar, you can not pick and choose what you want to believe.

    The US Constitution protects Religion from the Government, not the Government from Religion.
    Obama is proving that he can not be trusted even to follow existing law.

  • BILL

    You have no idea what the Catholic Faith teaches, or you would not make such a statement.  Read your “Catechism of the Catholic Church” if you truely were or are a Catholic.  Everyone is a sinner of some type including you.  Less than 1% of the Priests in the USA were involved in abuse.  There are more teachers in the public schools, children’s sports, and scouting and even parents who had been abusers – the secular media just picks and chooses what they want to report.

  • Auburn1963

    Its too bad you don’t know the difference between bad catholic men and a glorious Catholic Faith 

  • Anonymous

    I think irishsmile was referring to the American scenario where 1.4% would be the more accurate figure.
    Certainly, the majority of children who have been sexually abused are girls, and in most cases by family members, but that is the picture throughout the general population.  We are discussing the situation as it applies to the Church, and the research in the US has shown that fully 80% of the abuse cases were committed by gays on males.
    I must point out that I make a strict distinction between celibate homosexuals, like yourself, and promiscuous gays.  The terms ‘homosexual’ and ‘gay’ are not synonymous, notwithstanding the effort in the media to make them appear so.

  • Anonymous

    “The sad fact is that the Nazi government really did eliminate homosexual persons..”

    Only some of them, and only those who were thought to be actively opposed to the regime.
    One of them, Ernst Röhm, was a prominent member of the Party and Government until he fell foul of the Führer.
                                                                                              

  • Anonymous

    “There is nothing dignified in starving because of overpopulation.”

    Overpopulation is a myth.  This is a term used by affluent whites to press for the reduction by at least half of the non-white people of the world by forcing them to accept abortion and contraception, much against their traditional cultures.
    The theory is that the fewer blacks and browns there are, the more resources will be available for the whites, such as yourself.
    Overpopulation is a myth that we are determined to eradicate.

  • maryp

    Jane, the Catholic Church doesn’t force people to do anything. She informs us and then we exercise our God-given free will. 

  • maryp

    Jane, it seems to me that you would deny us Catholics  the opportunity to even express our opinions. Do you live in an extreme Communist regime?

  • maryp

    Speak for yourself BC! Many Catholics, including the vast majority of faithful priests, though scandalized by those who betrayed them, their faith and our own dear Lord, remained in the Catholic Church. Come to my church on a Sunday – but you’ll have to get there early – it’s packed! The Church is being purified and strengthened by the horrors of her scandals, Deo Gratias!

  • theroadmaster

    Don’t erroneously conflate non-acceptance of “same-sex” marriage with homophobia.  Religious believers and even those who do not have a belief in a supernatural creator, value the inherent worth of an institution based on the natural order of husband and wife  in a blessed mutual union raising children.  This has nothing to do with deliberately discriminating against or withholding rights from people of a “same-sex” attraction.  It is simply valuing something for what it essentially has always been and which simply cannot be redefined at the whim of legislators.
    You day that there is nothing dignified in letting people die in extreme pain.  There is certainly no dignity in dispatching them as if their lives had no further use.  There is a much more dignified solution than this and this is the expert care provided by the Hospice movement.  People can spend their remainder of their lives in comfort and free of pain.  The slippery slope of the Euthanasia movement has been reached in certain countries like Holland, where discussions took place a couple of years ago in relation to providing seriously ill or depressed children with access to this insidious means of ending it all.  You criticize the Catholic Church for chiding populations for employing contraception or abortion to limit their families.  What is dignified about a mother operating against all the best in her maternal instincts by destroying the growing life inside her?  Most modern contraceptives often have a back-up abortifacient capability and are part of the same life-denying mentality.

  • Jeannine

    The answer to your question is conditionally no. Many of the possible perpetrators are dead. The research can not account totally from the 1930s to the 1960s? because the priests in question are not alive.

  • Claude

    Write, write, write to the Nuncio and demand faithful Bishops.

  • theroadmaster

    It is a grossly erroneous reading of history to describe Catholic teaching as sanctioning hatred against homosexuals,  in terms of doctrine or papal pronouncements and it is disingenuous of you to blame the Church for the mass-murders committed by hitler and his regime against them.  Hitler murdered millions of people who did not fit in with his warped, mythical, aryan stereotype.  I would concede that the language used in regard to homosexuality should perhaps have been more compassionate in some Church documents

     Societal attitudes against homosexuality is a lot more nuanced than simplistic version that you have given.  In traditional continents like Africa(even before the mass arrival of European Christian missionaries in the 19th century), the practice of homosexual acts were very much frowned upon.  With certain exceptions as in Ancient Greece, this became the norm for Western society as well.

    Your depiction of the Church as being complicit in the horrific crime of the Shoah is another false reading of history.  Hitler and his henchmen carried out this crime against humanity and ultimately God, without any input from churchmen.  The false idols of racial superiority based on bogus science and nationalism drove this campaign against the Jewish people and others.  While admitting of no direct involvement of the Church in this atrocity, we cannot totally ignore the legacy left by at least 1,800 years of blaming the Jewish people as a whole, for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.  This attitude did contribute to societal discrimination and  bloody pogroms against Jews in Europe down the ages.    Vatican 11 was the unprecedented response of the Church which put Catholic-Jewish relationships on a new footing which has continued up to our present time.   

  • Oconnord

    No, you dismally fail to see that they are dependent on each other.
    The government must be free from religion so as to stop one religion from controlling the government. It’s a symbiotic relationship. Both groups benefit.  The government does not favour one religious belief above another and act as such.In turn the government is not influenced by any dominant religious group, thereby protecting the religious rights of all it’s people, no matter what religious beliefs they hold.

  • Oconnord

    Perhaps because the teachers it represents do not like having a speaker tell some of their pupils that they are dis-ordered. Perhaps they feel that telling young people who are struggling with their sexuality that they will behave against “Natural Law” is a lie. Perhaps they, like the last majority of their students will dismiss the speech as mere sad religious hokum, but also know that some kids might suffer from such unfounded claims.

    Perhaps they care about their young charges and want the best for them.

    As such they are doing their jobs to educate and protect kids as they best can. 

  • Oconnord

    Michael Gove was correct, this objection did not apply to the curriculum. There are two important things left out of the article. How old were the pupils and did they have a right to reply?

    If they were 15 years olds they would have been yawning, flirting and texting through the lecture. If they were older they may have been engaged and listened.

    But if they were older, did they have a chance to ask questions? 

  • Alan

    I agree that contraception etc. is not “health care”, it is personal choice, which is why I have always opposed the state paying for it.  But I don’t think the issue should be linked to “faith”, people can have conscientious objection to contraception without it being a matter of their “faith”.  That’s why I don’t see it as specifically an attack on religious freedom.  If “religious freedom” were the criterion, then Jehovah’s Witnesses could legitimately demand no blood transfusions provided by the state.

  • ms Catholic state

    There’s nothing wrong with the Government acknowledging the true religion.  In fact….it is demonic and disasterous when a government rejects Christ,  as the 20th century has taught us.  Take off the rose coloured spectacles.

    All people are equal certainly….but not all religions.  That’s illogical as well as false.

  • ms Catholic state

    So you just want a sexual free for all.  A kind of depravocracy.  Well you got one I guess.  Thanks be to God they always collapse sooner than later.

  • Nat_ons

    Whatever the truth buried in your diatribe, you mistake the target. No one ever listens to what one knows is true but is determined not to attend to, in or out of the church catholic – a sad reality in history as in all other topics. Pius IV was, in fact, renowned for his charity, justice and mildness – even toward heretics; while the action of Pius VI, toward France as elsewhere, was to oppose state tyranny even by aristocrats – Bourbon France and Spain opposed his election as a friend of the radical Jesuits (who had been nuisance enough to dare to elevate the needs of the poor indigenous peoples of America over the requirements of imperial colonists, etc, etc).

  • geoffreysmith1

    This comment is not the only thing that the BBC will not allow, Mary.
    In May 1997, during the general election campaign, BBC TV blacked out the screens rather than permit the viewers to watch graphic images of aborted babies, in the party political broadcast by the Pro-Life Party.
    Needless to say, I have never watched BBC television from that day to this, and have no intention of ever doing so. 

  • geoffreysmith1

    The person to whom this ‘bellyache’ is attributed is Mr Brendan Barber, the General Secretary of the TUC.  He is not a teacher.  He is a trade unionist.
    As such, he is looking after the interests of his union members, some of whom are gays.  In Mr Barber’s estimation, these gay members are more important and influential than any Christian members of the unions, and accordingly their votes and support for union policies are eagerly sought by the leadership.   Hence, the ‘bellyache’ from Mr Barber, who is genuflecting before the god of Political Correctness and worshipping the sacred cow of ‘gay rights’. 

  • ms Catholic state

    Well Brian….we have the alternative to Christendom….secular states.  If you find them fine and dandy….then you haven’t been paying much attention for the past few decades or else have a very skewed sense of right and wrong..

    Give me Christendom anyday.

  • geoffreysmith1

    “If “religious freedom” were the criterion, then Jehovah’s Witnesses could legitimately demand no blood transfusions provided by the state.”

    In the UK, the JWs do so demand, and their demand is granted.
    There have been a number of cases when the JW patient has died as a consequence of being refused a transfusion at the family’s request.

    In the US, the objection to the immoral provisions in the proposed HHS legislation is based on the undoubted fact that the provision of contraceptives would have to be paid for by the Catholic party’s insurance policy, which of course would be financed by the insured party concerned, the Catholics.
    This matter must therefore be linked to their faith, and it is specifically an attack on their religious freedom. 

  • Jane Brady

    You make the assumption that Catholics are something special [they are not]. This inflated idea arises out of the declaration by Pope Pius IX of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility The doctrine defines the Papal supremacy of the Pope. The doctrine of “Ineffabilis Deus” in 1854 decreed absolute Papal authority. It is a matter of sadness that “Ineffabilis Deus” was misunderstood by some Catholics insofar that they thought that had to obey The Pope, and that the Pope carried supremacy, even over the rulings and laws of elected governments and that Catholics were a special case in interpreting the law. Therefore, if there was some conflict of understanding, then the word of the Pope had to be obeyed. Non-Catholics did not understand what was meant by “ex cathedra” and great suspicion arose in many countries about the trust and loyalty of Roman Catholics. History shows us that there was religious and racial discrimination in the United States, Canada , the UK and several other countries.The action that Catholics are taking right now only reinforces the Roman Catholic Church’s mistaken idea that they are special and entitled to special privileges. Some misguided Catholic simpleton expressed the opinion that Catholics could influence the outcome of the American Presidential Election. This is complete and total nonsense, as well as being dangerous in it’s allusion.

  • David Devinish

    Some of the posts do support the idea that some Catholics deserve the title: Simpleton. There is the case where a simpleton decided to hide some bottles of water behind the altar in his local church in the anticipation that the water would be changed into wine after the event of the consecration. However some of the wise guys decided to fortify the water with poteen (moonshine) and coloured it with iodine to give it the appearance of altar wine. The simpleton was absolutely flabbergasted by this transformation (transubstantiation), as indeed was the priest. Instead of rejecting this silliness, the local priest decided that it may have been a sign and may have been a miracle, and good news spread about the parish. So they decided to replicate the experiment, of course it failed. They then decided that it was the visiting missionary Capuchin priest that had caused the transformation. The wise guys replicated their deception in another church, and low and behold, bus load of people were visiting until the wise guys had sold all their stock of illegal liquor to the simpletons. This is an excellent example of the ethos of Roman Catholicism, just like Lourdes and Fatima.

  • Anonymous

    “Some of the posts do support the idea that some Catholics deserve the title: Simpleton.”

    Listen to the pot calling the kettle black!

    Your allegation, Mr Devinish, remains just that: an allegation.  Who?   Where?  When?
    No evidence to back up your slander, I notice.
    No proof at all, just garbage.
    Must.  Try.  Harder.

  • maryp

    Geoffrey, good for you! If you like listening to the radio you could listen online to Relevant Radio. It’s a Catholic radio station that began in Green Bay, Wisconsin (i.e. the middle of nowhere!) I think maybe about 10 years ago. On Dec 8th last year, it was announced that an apparition of Our Lady to a young girl in Green Bay many years ago was authentic. The seer, one Adele Brise, was asked by Our Lady to ‘gather together the children in this wild land and teach them the faith”  That’s what Relevant Radio is doing in our own times. If only we had Catholic radio in the UK.

  • Dave Corrigan

    A similar thing happened in 1954 when Our Lady appeared at Annavore, Ardboe, Co. Tyrone, Ireland . There were pilgrimages from Scotland, England the South of Ireland to witness this new wonderment. The business of several relic peddlers, holy water and sacred paraphernalia merchants thrived. Allegedly, miracles were worked and wonderments were reported. Then, when all the illegal alcohol was sold, and Our Lady never returned. The Catholic still allows such scams in order to make money, and that is why the Catholic Church is failing fast. The people have found out to what levels the Catholic Church will sink to make money and hoodwink the gullible to their point of view. The case is well documented at the time, so there can be no difficulty for those who wish to check out the facts.

  • David Devinish

    Yes it happened in Urbleshanny Chapel, Scotstown Co Monaghan Ireland in April 1953. After all the embarrasment it caused, especially as the Bishop of Clogher believed the story.. I doubt however if anyone will care to talk about it. However some Protestants may still choose to make witty comments about it.

  • Anonymous

    Strange.  The Wikipedia has two extensive articles about Clogher and Scotstown, but not a word about this “apparition”.  You’d better get busy, Mr Devinish, correcting this omission!

  • Anonymous

    According to Google Maps, there is no such place as “Annavore” or “Ardboe”, either in Co. Tyrone or elsewhere.
    Do you mean Ardborra, in the RoI?

  • Jane Brady

    Remember the eight commandment? What right do you have to impugn another person’s character and morality, Your frustration, bitterness and venom are showing. “Do not judge, so that you will not be judged” Matthew 7:1. Are you a “whitewashed” Catholic?We have to allow for social change and it cannot be held back. Forty years it would have been unthinkable that homosexuality would have legalised, and same sex marriages approved of and considered normal. It would have been unthinkable that in some parts of the world it would have been considered legal and acceptable to marry a horse. Forty years ago it would also have been unthinkable that authentic consecrated communion could be obtained by mail order from missionary priests in Nigeria and Burkina Faso. These changes are good for society and reduce the authority, power and influence of the Roman Catholic Church has been to a religious sideshow or ”A Comedy of Errors”