Sat 25th Oct 2014 | Last updated: Fri 24th Oct 2014 at 18:39pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Latest News

Leading ex-Anglo-Catholic shuts down blog

By on Thursday, 9 June 2011

Fr Hunwicke's last blog post

Fr Hunwicke's last blog post

A prominent ex-Anglo-Catholic has shut down his blog in wake of news that his ordination as a priest in Britain’s ordinariate has been “deferred”.

John Hunwicke, former Anglican priest at St Thomas the Martyr, Oxford, and former Senior Research Fellow at Pusey House, said there had been a “misunderstanding” about the content of his blog.

He added: “I shall promptly delete any comments on it (or emails sent to me) which are in any way whatsoever critical of the Catholic Church, or any of its officers, or of the ordinariate.”

His blog “Fr Hunwicke’s Liturgical Notes” was read by many in the blogosphere and has received extensive support and prayers.

A distinguished intellectual, Fr Hunwicke opened his last blog post with the words: “I had better share with my friends the distressing news that my ordination within the Catholic Church has been ‘deferred’.

“Despite everything, I remain convinced that the ordinariate is the only means of achieving the great vision of the Catholic Revival.”

Blogger Fr Ray Blake said he was dismayed at the news.

Fr Ray Blake said: “I, too, am distressed to read this. I have never understood anything you have written to be unkind or ever contrary to the Faith … Your blog has been very important to me in my own spiritual and theological growth.”

  • RC

    This is mystifying and appalling news. I hope the situation is speedily resolved. To see such a man mistreated will hardly encourage others to enter into communion with Christ’s Church. In the meantime, we must pray for him, his family, and for all our brethren in Christ who are part of the Ordinariate project.

  • Conchúr

    I said this elsewhere but I’ll say it again until I’m blue in the face if I have to: It’s an utter disgrace that of all possible people John Hunwicke’s has had his ordination postponed. I really am dreadfully angry about this.

  • Neville Noags

    He broke rule number 1. He dissed the Pope. Not Benedict 16 but Paul 6 – several times.

  • RC

    Did he? Or did he just express disagremeent with some of Paul VI’s acts? Is this the new litmus test for ordination? How about Alexander VI? Innocent III? Boniface VIII? Are scholars who aspire to ordination allowed to express any criticisms of their acts? The English Church continues to ordain men who are in violation of the Congregation for Education’s 2005 document, yet balks at Hunwicke because he’s not uncritical of the decades of the rainbow chasuble?

    Let’s not delude ourselves. Hunwicke didn’t “break” any rules. His enthusiasm for the Church’s doctrine and history is evident to anyone who bothers to visit his blog, as is his love for the Holy Father – both the office and the person. This whole sorry situation reflects very poorly on those who made the decision, and those – if such there be – who pressured them into making it.

  • Robert Williams7

    Excellent news.Hunwicke has an utter contempt for Apostolicae Curae and has been claiming to celebrate as an Anglican for many years the latin mass. He has ( or does not wish to) no understanding of the real protestant roots of Anglicanism.

  • Mundabor

    I’d have preferred that he’d have cleaned the blog of potentially unorthodox affirmations rather than recurring to the extreme gesture of shutting down his own blog. To shut down a blog means to throw away (unless he has saved it elsewhere) a lot of work that can be of inspiration for others preparing to swim the Tiber.

    Besides, it is certainly not unheard of – not to be censored – that he be critical of men of the establishment. God knows many deserve it, and deserve for it to be said out loud.

    On the other hand, if one doesn’t accept Apostolicae Curae he is not fit to become a Catholic priest, period. 

    I have written some thoughts on the matter here:


  • Mundabor

    The blog seems to be alive and kicking as I write, that is: back online.

    I read a bit around (very fast I must admit) and couldn’t find anything questionable, thought I didnt really like this, which seems to be a very extensive interpretation of a total “emergency” rules which sounds very “anglican” to me, and an attempt to have masses of Anglicans taking communion in Catholic church without telling themselves the truth about what this implies:

    Apart from that, I enjoyed what I read.


  • Fr Gerard

    I think we are doing him no favours here. Let’s just pray for him – I think, for what it is worth, that he should have thought twice before making a nasty remark about Monsignor Loftus on his blog; it cheapened his blog and was uncharacteristically unkind. As for the reasons for his deferral – let’s leave that to the Ordinary to sort out and look forward to his ordination in due course. Prayers rather than brickbats from now on, I feel.

  • Conchúr

    That post is so thoroughly ignorant one scarcely knows where to begin.

  • Mundabor

    Fr Gerard,
    I’m not sure that Mgr Loftus was the cause. I have read criticism of Mgr Loftus in well-known blogs written by Catholic priests (I won’t make any names) and I can’t imagine that they had negative consequences of any sort.

    I’d rather say that the problems might lie in the way Fr Hunwicke writes of his Anglican experience.

    For example, in his last message (the one where he announces that he is going not to shut down the blog as erroneously reported, but to stop writing for the time being)  he firstly says that he is totally loyal to the Magisterium and then proceeds to mention his “priestly ordination in 1968″ and his “43 years of priestly ministry”.

    Frankly, if this is said – and the more so, if this is insistently said – as if his had been a valid priestly ordination, without a word of qualification making clear that he does not recognise the validity of Anglicans so-called “orders”, than this can easily be interpreted – or have been explicitly meant – as a huge matter or not acceptance of Church teaching, vastly overshadowing any unwritten etiquette rule regarding the proper way of criticising Mgr Loftus.

    I have noted in the past from other Anglican bloggers that at times – mind, I don’t say that this is the case by Mr. Hunwicke – they tend to have a very “anglican” approach to Catholicism: I’ll say that I agree with the Magisterium but hey, *of course I won’t change my mind whenever it’s uncomfortable*.


  • Mundabor

    well you could have made an effort, conchur.

    RobertWilliams7 might be right or wrong, but he formulates an argument. Insulting him is no refutation of the argument, nor is it any useful contribution.


  • Fatheraquilina

    Fairness please! I have not said that I am dismayed I simply left a comment on the mentioned blog assuring John of my prayers.

  • Fr Gerard

    Mundabor, I am not suggesting it was the remark that caused this deferral – I simply think it was a mistake and uncalled for.
    I do not think that his reference to being a priest for forty-three years is the cause either – the church always recognises the ministry of former Anglican priests when they are received.
    The truth is, I am not sure we can know the reason, although I have winced once or twice at the way that the blog has addressed one or two issues.
    I am sure it will soon be resolved and we should just pray for him and be calm.

  • Ken Purdie

    I agree completely.

  • Mundabor

    Fr Gerard, yes it might have been a mistake (we are all human, are we not?), but I personally think that a bit of spice is what makes a blog, well, human.

    I don’t understand your reference to the “recognising”: the supposed holy orders of an Anglican are valid, or they are not. If they are not (which they aren’t) they can’t become valid at some point afterwards. The Church doesn’t know any “recognising” of sacrament. If your baptism isn’t valid, you have to be baptised. 

    This is, btw, the reason why an Anglican former “priest” is **ordained** a priest. He is ordained because (before the ordination) ** he just isn’t **. If his supposed orders were recognised as valid, there would be no need for an ordination.

    And an ordination is, in fact, exactly what has been (for the time being) **denied to him**. This is further proof that **he hasn’t any**.

    Speaking of which, I notice that Mr Hunwickes writes “my ordination within the Catholic Church”, once again giving the impression that to him there are two valid ordinations: one Anglican, and one Catholic. 

    It might be just imprecision of language, but in my eyes it makes RobertWilliams7′s comment above rather worth reading.

    An anglican religious wanting to become a Catholic should, in my eyes, not leave any doubt about his acceptance of Apostolicae Curae; nor should he give any reason to suspect that he believes – a well-spread Anglican sport, I am told – that Apostolicae Curae doesn’t apply to.. Anglican orders.

    He has been certainly informed as to the reason of his not being ordained. I trust that he will be able to deal with the issue speedily.


  • AgingPapist

    On the other hand, if one doesn’t accept Apostolicae Curae he is not fit to become a Catholic priest, period.
    Nonsense, utter nonsense.  Hundreds of priests long ordained, from Anglican backgrounds and Roman rite backgrounds, don’t accept “Apostolicae Curae” and they never have.  This deferral is a disturbing sign the neo-Nazi “thought police” are alive and well in Benedict’s court of flunkies and yes men.

    Anglicans everywhere had best be giving this ordinariate a much closer scrutiny and those who are determining the future of it before making any plans.

  • Mundabor

    Reading the comments on his last blog post now, and I think they are enlightening.

    Loads and loads of comments with people calling themselves “Father” who are clearly Anglicans. It is clear that most commenters are utterly ignoring Apostolicae Curae, or giving the usual convenient “Anglican” interpretation of it.

    Then an excellent Catholic blogger and priest, EF Pastor Emeritus, writes the following:

    “Prayerful good wishes. I suspect the problem may be with using the title “Father” in you blog!

    Until now I had not realised you were not a Catholic priest.”

    He makes, therefore, clearly the same analysis I do. He is a real (obviously as in: “RC”) Catholic Priest, mind, and a very fit one at that. The probability that his – real or perceived – attitude towards Apostolicae Curae be at the root of the problem is, in my eyes, rather high.

    Nothing that he can’t set straight anyway.


  • AgingPapist

     “He dissed the Pope”? That shouldn’t matter because there are plenty of bishops and priests out there right now who have dissed this pope, his predecessor, and Paul VI.  So, what else is new?

     I see further signs of more and more of the clergy becoming estranged from Benedict and the incompetents around him..  Bring on the Reformation, Part Two.

  • Mundabor

    AgingPapist, the nonsense is all yours.

    To be a Catholic means to believe everything that the Church believes, and to profess everything that the Church professes.

    You are making your own Catholicism. This is called, then, Anglicanism.


  • nigel

    May blessed John Henry Newman (himself no stranger to misunderstanding) pray for him.

  • AgingPapist

    a very “anglican” approach to Catholicism
     Whatever that is?  Furthermore, once we can define what an “Anglican approach” is, it stands to reason Anglican clergy, as Fr. Hunwicke was,  can be expected to have it, right?  Very few priests I’ve known for 60 years or more could care less about the “magisterium”, particularly as it is so narrowly construed by the neanderthals marching under Benedict’s banner.

     I hope after this disgraceful experience and insult,  Fr. Hunwicke will drop any plans to join the ordinariate, embrace the true faith of Orthodoxy,  and seek ordination at the hands of Metropolitan Kallistos Ware. Other CofE clergy contemplating a move toward Benedict’s ship of fools should do likewise, or stay where they are.

  • Séamus ÓC.

    In all honesty, it seems very natural to me that he rejects Apostolicae Curae as it applies to him, and I would be  distinctly surprised if the other Ordinariate converts accepted it. Consider, after all, what accepting ordination under these terms means: they are in essence being asked to confess that for decades they have been impertinently dressing up as priests, pretending to consecrate a host while having no power to do so, and then elevating for the objectively idolatrous adoration of the faithful a small piece of bread. I find it hard to believe that this is really the position of the three ex-flying bishops or any of the other ordinands, though of course I would not presume to know their minds.

    On the other hand, if this is indeed the case, then the Ordinariate ordinands are not merely forced to reject a late-19th century papal bull, which might just conceivably not apply to them (though, of course, this would in itself go against the established position of the Church). If they accept Catholic ordination while continuing to believe in the validity of their Anglican orders, then they must also reject the teachings that a valid ordination leaves an indelible mark on the soul and thus that to repeat the sacrament unconditionally is objectively sacrilegious. 

    In short, the deferral of Fr Hunwicke’s ordination and the closure of his blog seem to me to represent the outward expression of a serious problem. In a certain sense, it’s an example of the clash between the Anglican fondness for fuzziness and the Roman love of clarity. This is deeply unfortunate: Fr Hunwicke and his colleagues would doubtless make excellent Catholic priests. I would be very interested to find out how the ex-Anglicans who have already been ordained resolved this dilemma.

  • Fr Gerard

    Love reading you Aging Papist. Just a correction – John Hunwicke is already an Ordained member of the Ordinariate. You and I have no idea why he has been deferred, let’s stop picking over his bones for our own motives.

  • AgingPapist

    Mundabor, when are you going to learn anyone validly baptized may celebrate a valid eucharist. Be it a sacrificial oblation, a holy meal, what-have-you?  The Holy Spirit has invested the entire Mystical Body with the power to do anything it so wishes in establishing priestly credentials.

    The priest/presbyter/episcopus is a creature  of the congregation which consists of the “royal priesthood”. He is selected by them and functions no differently from anyone else who called upon him to intercede on the congregation’s behalf.

  • AgingPapist

    To be a Catholic means to believe everything that the Church believes, and to profess everything that the Church professes. 

    Mundabor,  LOL LOL, If that be the case, it appears you and Pope Benedict, and perhaps a couple of elderly nuns living in some remote Irish village and a few more living in Alice Springs, Australia, are about the only Catholics left today.

  • AgingPapist

    RC, All Anglicans in or out of the Ordinariate are members of Christ’s Church.

  • AgingPapist

    The ex-Anglicans have kept their thoughts to themselves. If Anglicans contemplating making the big switch go ahead and link themselves to this ordinariate farce, they had best continue to do so.

  • AgingPapist

    Fr. Hunwicke will soon appreciate more than he has ever done before the great tolerance for a variety of views within Anglicanism.  I hope other Anglican clergy will also reflect on this too.  There is a high price to pay for giving up this tolerance and the considerable amount of control possessed by the laity to seek communion with this “magisterium”.  A body of malefactors and miscreats which grows more intolerant by the day and now represents a serious throwback to the days of the Inquisition and the mindset of Pio Nono.

    This is not where the Roman church should be going. It behooves Anglicans and papalists alie  to join in a Universal Novena seeking delivery soon from this malevolent, Satan-inspired regime in Rome.  Benedict needs to go and go now.  With the universal episcopate, the lower clergy and the People of God, electing his successor.  What may save the old man is the choices in the College of Cardinals as his replacement are even worse.

    The laity must take matters into their own hands and seize the reins of power themselves.

  • Robert Williams7

    Just  read Hunwicke’s writings…he speaks anti Catholic sentiments and this  is why  his blog is now  shut down. Would the Pope allow a man to be ordained who publicly ridiculed Humanae vitae?…..and this is what his position as regards Apostolicae Curae is comparable to.

    Aquilena  , a former Catholic who became an Anglican and then  returmed to rome to be ordained as a married man.

    Hunwicke with his eccentriuc views.

    Ordinations in Portsmouth where an heretical King James Bible was used for the taking of the oaths.

    There are only some of the problems already emerging within the Ordinariate.

  • Parasum

    That could be said of the Tractarians. I’ve never found Newman’s Tract 90 at all impressive or honest: “Jesuitical”, in the worst sense, yes. Maybe Newman was trying desperately hard to convince himself that his theory that Anglicanism was a *via media* betyween Geneva & Rome was valid. That would explain the
    chasm between his theorising, & the facts of Anglican life. BTW – if the Church of England clergy are Catholic priests, & always have been: why did none of them during the “Penal Times” stand up for the Catholic priests whose only crime was their priesthood ?

    The Church of England is Protestant, and always has been. Having plenty of Catholic elements, whethrer in the 17th or 19th century, does not change this’; for so had Lutheranism, even in Luther’s day. There can be no wortwhile ecumenical discussion until the thickies in Rome & Great Britain get in into the fat the heads the realisation that the Church of England is Protestant, not Catholic. It may be, and indeed is, catholic – but it is not Catholic. The ARCIC documents are interesting, but that’s about it. I say pulp them, & turn them into Catholic books, for spreading Catholicism.

  • AgingPapist

    Of course Fr. Hunwicke’s ordination as a Roman priest may not be valid either. Many  Catholics today think as the Sedevacantists and a large number of SSPX followers do that the Paul VI ordination rites are invalid. A large segment of Eastern Orthodox bishops also believe a Roman ordination rite is invalid because it is performed by a heretical bishop, using an ordination rite authorized by a  heretical pope.

    Fr. Hunwicke might wish to reconsider his plans and skip across the Bosphorus to see what deal he can strike with Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople.

  • Parasum

    Here’s hoping that their superiors are as perceptive.

    I don’t think this is implied: “Consider, after all, what accepting ordination under these terms
    means: they are in essence being asked to confess that for decades they
    have been impertinently dressing up as priests, pretending to consecrate
    a host while having no power to do so, and then elevating for the
    objectively idolatrous adoration of the faithful a small piece of bread.”

    It maybe possible to frame some kind of theory which accounts for all the details. Their ministrations can be invalid in Rome’s eyes, without being fraudulent. And it is Christ Who is adored – whether under the sacramental species, or not. The graces received would be no less real. 

  • Mikecat10421

    maybe  = :slap: = may be

  • Mafhome

    Mundabor:  Surely you must be aware that the question whether Anglican
    Orders are valid or otherwise is a question very much akin to that which
    achieved some notoriety some few years ago as to wether the sun moves
    round the earth or vice versa).

    In a matter of apostolic sucession, the Chruch cannot afford doubt for
    obvious reasons.  The Leonine Bull must therefore be viewed as an
    exercise of the judicial power rather than the teaching power.  On the
    evidence available at the time, the generality of Anglican Orders were
    held to be invalid.  Yet exceptions have been made.  There have been
    cases of “conditional ordination”, for example, that of the late Mgr
    Leonard formerly Anglican Bishop of London.  Further, since the Council
    of Trent decreed that ordination is a sacarment which can only be
    conferred once, there must always be an implied conditionality in any
    second ceremony.   While it is unlikely for sound practical reasons that
    Aposolicae Curae will be reconsidered, it most certainly could be.

    So if I were you, I’d be none too anxious to transform adjudications on
    mere propositions into infallible dogma – or you may end up like
    Gallileo:  “Eppur’ si muove!”

    All that is necessary for the preservation of the succession beyond
    doubt is that the validity be put beyond doubt.   That is what is done
    and, I for one am content that it not necessary for me to be certain
    just when a particular Anglian first became a priest, as long as it is
    certain that he is one when he celebrates the divine liturgy in a Roman
    Catholic church.   And I’m certainly prepared, to recognise, as the
    Church most certainly does, both the great worth of the previous
    ministry of former Anglicans and their prersent and
    future potential.

  • Adam Thomson

    In what way is the King James Bible to be regarded as heretical? Is this the official position of the Church?

  • RC

    In response to Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical, many Anglicans in the Catholic/Papalist tradition took measures to ensure that their orders were Rome-compliant. Thus the former Bishop of London, and late Msgr Graham Leonard, was only conditionally ordained on entry into the Catholic Church; he had documentation which led Rome to believe there was a decent chance he had been validly ordained. I would be extremely surprised if a similar situation did not obtain in Hunwicke’s case, though I don’t know the details.

    Regardless, your estimation of probabilities strikes me as wrong. Are we really meant to believe that some of the same prelates who think nothing – until Rome intervenes – of allowing their cathedrals to be used for non-Catholic ordinations… that these men have suddenly developed a profound objection to simulated orders? Or is it more likely that Hunwicke’s wit, intelligence and learning – all put to the service of orthodoxy and orthopraxy – have made him powerful enemies among the faceless ranks of Modernists and Romophobes presently polluting the Church?

    I find it hard not to get angry about this situation. Continued prayers for Hunwicke and his family, and for those who have made this decision.

  • RC

    Libellous, semi-literate rubbish. God forgive you if your false and uncharitable writings should cause a single soul to reconsider entry into the Church founded by Christ.

  • RC

    The Anglo-Catholics I know – even the ones not availing themselves of the Ordinariate – manage to show more respect for the Holy See and Holy Father than you do. I fear “SenilePapist” or “UnmedicatedPapist” might prove more accurate monikers.

  • Warren

    We would all do well to recall that it is better to exercise prudence and avoid working things out in public when circumstances require appropriate confidentiality. The internet is profoundly deficient with regards to hearing/seeing shades of intent. Things can be blown out of proportion in a near instant. All it takes is for some well-intentioned advocate to allow their heated emotions to fuel their written comments and then, consequently, for another well-intentioned individual to chime in and stoke matters into a fury and, voila, firestorm of unnecessary confusion.

    It was entirely unnecessary for Fr. Hunwicke to air the deferral of ordination. It’s precisely the kind of attention he is now getting that will not help him. Those who have authority to pronounce on the matter have made a decision that should have been kept between them and Fr. Hunwicke. The blogosphere is no place to work out matters of polity. Speculation and gossip serves no interest other than some unredeemed need to indulge our curiosity, like passersby gawking at an automobile accident.

    Sometimes good people make mistakes and say or do too much. Part of being obedient (especially when awaiting ordination) is the exercise of restraint. I have known other convert priests who had to wait a very long time for their cases to be processed. They, too, were upset but, in the end, each one held his tongue, asked for the Lord’s strength during the perceived trial and things worked out just fine. We would all do well to fast and pray and demonstrate obedience to Holy Mother Church.

    Offer up your suffering and petitions to God and trust the Lord.

  • kiwiinamerica

    Uh no……he didn’t diss the Pope. He dissed the “bully boys”, not once but twice in those exact words. The “bully boys” being those members of the episcopate who attempt to undermine the Pope’s reforms and initiatives in the area of liturgy and ecumenism.

     In the first instance, he rejoiced over Universae Ecclesiae and explained that one of the reasons for its publication was the actions of the “bully boys” who refuse to implement “Summorum Pontificum” and in the second instance, he enthused over the removal of the Bishop of Toowoomba and used the same term to describe those members of the episcopate who had run interference for said bishop.

    This is the “get square”. The comeback.  This ruling did not come from the CDF, I’ll wager. It came from the UK.

  • Nat_ons

    God bless you, Fr Hunwicke, John, by the good grace of God soon to be a priest in full communion with God’s beloved called to be saints at Rome. Rubbing along with ‘saints’ - as well as at times rubbing them up the wrong way - is, of course, all part of the gritty discipline of divinely wrought sainthood (rather than merely being ‘holy’ in a lost world). J H Cardinal Newman, truly Blessed, is smiling at this from his heavenly seat, and he is - I have not the least doubt in the Spirit - already tilting his well-worthy crown of glory ready for the struggles ahead.

    Any soul who thought that Walsingham was going to be only mighty-pretty-Rose-Garden stuff had forgotten all the thorns, weeding and manure needed to make it sweet and healthy .. a folly of forgetfulness, I am sure, that has never overtaken you at heart (even if this current, gentle, prodding in a predilection of love has prompted some of your doubters to act).

    May the Lord our God so grace you! Our Lady of Walsingham, prayerfully uphold you! Blessed John Henry Newman walk with you .. all that saint-strewn, stony way!


  • Anonymous

    I agree Mundabor.  Aging Papist is wrong.  Apostolicae Curae has to be held definitively by Catholics – see the 1998 Commentary by (then) Cardinal Ratzinger on Ad Tuendam Fidem which states:- “With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations …”

  • Neville Noags

    You can’t be loyal to Pope Benedict at the same time as saying that the Ordinary Form mass is a lot of bollocks, and that his predecessor but one was a misguided idiot. On both counts ex-parson Hunwicke is condemned.

  • Neville Noags

    Or he could just go to Palmar de Troyas. It’s nearer.

  • Neville Noags

    Is Rev Hunwicke alone in the naughty corner, or have their been other ‘deferrals’ among the ordinariate ordinands?

  • EditorCT

    Monsignor Loftus’s Ordinaries – both the Bishop of Leeds and now the Bishop of Aberdeen – have done sweet nothing to sort out this man who is permitted to write the most disgraceful attacks on the Church pre-Vatican II when everything was bad, unlike now when the Church is vibrant and full of faithful Catholics with strong marriages and lots of children, vocations galore etc etc.

    Yeah, let’s not cheapen a blog by speaking the truth. And if you read the writings of the great saints on heretics and heresy, such as St Francis de Sales, you’ll see that being “kind” isn’t going to get anyone into heaven if they tolerated or encouraged false teaching being spread through Catholic newspapers. That’s about the last place the unsuspecting faithful expect to be led astray. There’s nothing kind about leading souls to Hell – assuming it exists of course… 

    Sorry, but prayers, while of course important, are not enough.  If prayer is all that is needed, Christ need not have entered this world and died as He did.  Prayers, penance and action go together.  Too many people use the “just pray” slogan as an excuse to do nothing. Tolerating priests in the media like Monsignor Loftus is not an option. He speaks out very plainly in his columns and thus he must be prepared to take public criticism. People should not be bullied or made to feel as if they are uncharitable or “unkind” because they correct errors and denounce priests (and lay people) who are causing confusion in an already chaotic post-Vatican II Church.  I will continue to speak out against the scandalous writings of Monsignor Loftus, because that is true charity. 

  • Anonymous

    Good grief. Are you a Dutch Dominican?

  • Little Black Censored

    Conchur, you are a good egg.

  • Little Black Censored

    Robert Williams7, are there really seven of you? I do hope not.

  • Little Black Censored

    You should not blame the Pope for this. The cause lies much nearer home.