The Catholic Family

Last in a Series on Catholic Marriage and Parenthood

 by
 Fr. Thomas J. Gerrard

The Holy Family
Juan Simón Gutiérrez (1634-1718)

The ideal of the Catholic family has been only once fully realized. There have been many good examples, all more or less approaching the ideal. But all except one must be regarded as having failed, at least in some respects, to achieve the perfection of family life. That one, of course, is the Holy Family of Nazareth. Since, therefore, God has given us the ideal fully realized in the concrete, it is to that rather than the more remote symbols that we must go for our lessons as to what the Catholic family should be. The Word was made flesh to reveal to us the mind of the Eternal Father. In order, then, to learn the mind of the Eternal Father concerning the nature and end of the Catholic family life, we cannot do better than turn our thoughts to the little home at Nazareth.

The school of the Apostles was formed by Our Lord during the years of His public ministry. Then, having been organized by Him during His lifetime, it was fully promulgated and endowed with its special gifts after His death, by the descent of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost. The purpose of the Incarnation was the salvation of souls. The purpose of the Church was the salvation of souls. The purpose of the first Catholic Family was the salvation of souls. The first and foremost purpose, then, of every Catholic family is to obtain for its members the possession of everlasting life. The family does not exist merely for the sake of the love of husband and wife; nor for the love of parent and children; nor for the acquisition of worldly fortunes; nor for the promotion of the children in business; nor for the material prosperity of nations. All these are lawful and subordinate aims are subordinate to the final aim, which is to help immortal souls to get to heaven. This is the first and, in a sense, the only lesson to be learned from the Holy Family of Nazareth: the purpose of the Catholic family is the undoing of sin, the hindrance of sin, the propagation of those truths and virtues which lead to life eternal.

The child Jesus grew in wisdom and age and grace in the eyes of God and of men. Although possessing the Beatific Vision, and consequently all wisdom, knowledge, and grace, yet Jesus deemed it expedient to acquire an experimental knowledge of things, to learn from Joseph and Mary the great truths about religion, and how to apply them to the development of the spiritual life. Jesus was the foundation of all grace. He was knowledge itself; He was wisdom itself; but He chose that His wisdom and knowledge and grace should be manifested gradually. He chose to undergo that laborious education to set the example to all Christian families, to show them that it was only by constant teaching and learning that Christian character could be formed. The Christian mother, then, assiduously watches for the first dawn of conscience in her child. She knows, or ought to know, that first impressions are the most effective and most lasting. She delights to take her child on her knees and teach it to pray. Her pride is to show her friends how her little one can say the Our Father and the Hail Mary. At length, the time comes when the child must be sent to school. There must be no question about the character of the school, it must be Catholic.

The Catholic school will undoubtedly possess a Catholic atmosphere. The constant or frequent presence of priests or religious, the Catholic prayers, the statues and the fixtures, all tend to keep before the mind of the child the fact that he is a Catholic.

Now the Catholic home ought to be at least as Catholic as the Catholic school. There ought to be prominent signs about the house that it is the abode of a Catholic family. There is a feeling in some families, having pretensions to be up-to-date and fashionable, to regard a religious picture in the drawing-room as out of place. This feeling is generally the fruit of worldliness. It Is also, in a measure, due to the large number of inferior pictures which flood the market, those cheap lithographs of the Pope or the bishop, which are a compliment to neither. A zealous father of a Catholic family will make an endeavor to hang up one or two good and really artistic religious pictures. They give a tone to the house, impressing the faith on the minds of the members of the family, and expressing the faith of the family to visitors.

More important even than Catholic art is Catholic literature. These are days when everybody reads or, at least, is supposed to read. And it is notorious that Catholics do not buy books as they should. Our Holy Father has warned us that, unless we support a good Catholic press, it will be useless for us to build schools and churches. Now, the Catholic Church is not wanting either in excellent writers or in excellent publishers. Our book stores are rich in devotional, scientific, and recreational literature. The crying shame is that so little of this finds its way into the Catholic family. Heads of Catholic families, therefore, ought to see to it at once that there is a shelf for religious literature, that there is a regular subscription to some monthly or quarterly Catholic journal, and, especially among the working classes, a subscription to some Catholic weekly newspaper. It is chiefly through the press that the members of the family learn their relationship to other institutions in the world. The secular press keeps them provided with political news and so constantly reminds them of their civic duties. But the secular press is not an ideal medium for showing the Catholic his duty to the State.

Especially in the matter of education, the Catholic need to know the bearings between the mind of the Church and the mind of the State. And he ought to know this, not only on general principles, but also in the application of those principles to the particular circumstances of his country. He must know what the bishops have said, what the government has done to this or that particular school or college, and what the government proposes to do with schools and colleges in the future. In a word, he must be alive to his duties as a Catholic citizen. The family life is the foundation of true citizenship. Since, therefore, the Catholic press is the means by which the Catholic learns the bearings between the family, the Church, the State, the Catholic press ought to be an institution in every Catholic household.

And Jesus went down with them, and came to Nazareth and was subject unto them.

Order is said to be heaven's first command. If, on the other hand, love be said to be the first and final law of heaven, the statement must be qualified by making the love a well-ordered love. Even sin is only disordered love, the love of something contrary to the Divine Will. So also in the family life, love must be the ruling principle, but it must be a well-ordered love. Our Lord, therefore, in order to teach us this lesson, went down with His parents to Nazareth, and was subject unto them. Nowhere outside the bosom of the Blessed Trinity was a triple love so perfect as that love between Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. Yet St. Joseph was the head and ruler of the family. It was St. Joseph who was told to fear not, but take Mary to be his spouse. It was St. Joseph who was told by the angel to arise and take the Child and His mother and flee into Egypt. It was St. Joseph who was divinely commanded to return and take Mary and Jesus to Nazareth. Although Mary was so much spiritually exalted over Joseph, yet Joseph was to be the ruler of the family. And although Jesus was so much spiritually exalted over Joseph and Mary, yet in the family He was to be subject to both.

Here, then, is the rule for the Catholic family. The father is to be supreme ruler, the mother is to rule in her sphere under him, the children are to be subject to both. Moreover, the subjection of the children is not to be a slavish subjection, but a filial subjection. It must be informed by love rather than by fear. There must, of course, be a certain fear present in the children, but a reverential fear, a fear by which one is afraid of offending love, rather than a fear by which one is afraid of punishment. Further, the obedience of children is not unlimited. If parents command anything contrary to divine law the duty of the children is to disobey. In cases of doubt, however, the presumption is in favor of the parents. But wherever there is a question of family interest or domestic arrangements the will of the parents must be obeyed. It is not for children to say which school they shall go to, to say where the family shall take up its abode, to say at what hour the family shall dine, to say what time they shall come in at night. These are points upon which children frequently mistake their place in the family, points in which they are obviously subject to their parents.

There comes a time, too, when children grow up. The relationships between them and their parents then become somewhat modified. Nevertheless, there still remain the duties of reverence and love. The children are free to choose their own states of life. In this they are not bound to follow the wishes of their parents, but they are bound to consult their parents and to weigh the considerations which they put forth. Then, later, when the parents are overtaken with old age, the children are bound in cases of necessity to support them.

From the principles of order and superiority and subjection in the family there arises the duty of the parents, and especially of the father, of providing for the material well-being of the children. There is an impression prevalent that worldly success and Roman Catholicism are not compatible. And it is certainly true that in many Protestant communities the Catholic is at a disadvantage. That is only an extra reason why Catholics should make themselves more proficient in their respective trades and professions. If a Catholic lawyer, or doctor, or engineer excels in his own vocation, then Protestant, Jew, and Infidel will engage him in preference. And if he shines in his Catholicity as he does in his profession, then the cause of Catholicity will benefit in proportion.

The father of the Catholic family, therefore, must provide his children with a good secular education. The school must be Catholic, but it must likewise be efficient in its secular subjects. Piety must come before worldly success, but it need not be allowed to supplant it. We have schools in abundance, schools as efficient as any secular schools in the country. There is no need to go outside the Church, though there may be need to use discrimination within the Church. And this discrimination is the office of the parents of the family.

We may sum up, then, the principles of Catholic family life thus: The family is the foundation of the State, and the strength and purity of the State depend on the strength and purity of the family. The family, however, is not the foundation of the Church, but is rather the child of the Church, taking its instructions from the Church, and existing primarily for the same end as the Church, namely, the salvation of souls. It should, therefore, be Catholic in its faith, Catholic in its hope, and Catholic in its love. The Catholic faith will be fostered by ceaseless attention to the Sacraments, to Catholic education during youth, and Catholic instruction through the press during manhood. From Catholic faith and hope will spring Catholic love. This will be made ever more and more fruitful by being kept in order, the father and mother ruling by love, the children obeying through love. The endeavor must be made to carry these Catholic principles into the world of business and professions, and to show to the non-Catholic world that religion and intellectual efficiency are not incompatible; nay, to show that only by the observance of the law of religion can the family, and consequently the State, achieve the perfection which it desires.

(Photo: Dave Crenshaw)

The Silver Lining in the Cloud that is Synod 2015

The good folks over at OnePeterFive were kind enough to publish an article I wrote on the creative potential contained in the fallout of the 2015 Synod. You can read it by clicking on the link below:

Rise Thou That Sleepest

Synod 2015: Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk

[Note: The following speech was delivered by Orthodox Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, Russia, to the participants of the 2015 Synod last Tuesday.]

Metropolitan Hilarion

Your Holiness!

Your Beatitudes, Eminences and Excellencies!

On behalf of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and all Rus, I extend fraternal greetings to you on the occasion of the Fourteenth Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops of the Catholic Church on the theme of the family.

In our restless and disturbing world, the human person needs a firm and unshakable foundation upon which he can rest and upon which he can build his life with confidence. At the same time, secular society, aimed primarily at the gratification of individual needs, is incapable of giving the human person clear moral direction. The crisis of traditional values which we see in the consumer society leads to a contradiction between various preferences, including those in the realm of family relationships. Thus, feminism views motherhood as an obstacle to a woman's self-realization, while by contrast having a baby is more often proclaimed as a right to be attained by all means possible. More often the family is viewed as a union of persons irrespective of their gender, and the human person can "choose" his or her gender according to personal taste.

On the other hand, new problems are arising which have a direct impact on traditional family foundations. Armed conflicts in the contemporary world have brought about a mass exodus from areas gripped by war to more prosperous countries. Emigration often leads to a disruption of family ties, creating at the same time a new social environment in which unions of an inter-ethnic and inter-religious nature arise.

These challenges and threats are common to all the Christian Churches which seek out answers to them, proceeding from the mission that Christ has placed upon them: to bring humanity to salvation. Unfortunately, in the Christian milieu, too, we often hear voices calling for the "modernization" of our ecclesial consciousness, for the rejection of the supposedly obsolete doctrine of the family. However, we ought never to forget the words of St. Paul addressed to the Christians of Rome:

And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. (Romans 12:2)

The Church is called to be a luminary and beacon in the darkness of this age, and Christians to be the "salt of the earth" and "light to the world." We all ought to recall the Saviour's warning:

If the salt have lost his savor, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. (Matthew 5:13-14)

The salt which has lost its savor are those Protestant communities which call themselves Christian, but which preach moral ideals incompatible with Christianity. If in this type of community a rite of blessing of same-sex unions is introduced, or a lesbian so-called "bishop" calls for the replacement of crosses from the churches with the Muslim crescent, can we speak of this community as a "church"? We are witnessing the betrayal of Christianity by those who are prepared to accommodate themselves to a secular, godless and churchless world.

The authorities of some European countries and America, in spite of numerous protests, including those by Catholics, continue to advocate policies aimed at the destruction of the very concept of the family. They not only on the legislative level equate of the status of the same-sex unions to that of marriage but also criminally persecute those who out of their Christian convictions refuse to register such unions. Immediately after the departure of Pope Francis from the USA, President Barack Obama openly declared that gay rights are more important than religious freedom. This clearly testifies to the intention of the secular authorities to continue their assault on those healthy forces in society which defend traditional family values. Catholics here are found at the forefront of the struggle, and it is against the Catholic Church that a campaign of discrediting and lies is waged. Therefore courage in vindicating Christian beliefs and fidelity to Church tradition are particularly necessary in our times.

Today, when the world ever more resembles that foolish man "which built his house on the sand" (Matthew 7:26) it is the Church's duty to remind the society of its firm foundation of the family as a union between a man and woman created with the purpose of giving birth to and bringing up children. Only this type of family, as ordained by the Lord when he created the world, can forestall or at least halt temporarily modern-day society’s further descent into the abyss of moral relativism.

The Orthodox Church, like the Catholic Church, has always in her teaching followed Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition in asserting the principle of the sanctity of marriage founded on the Savior's own words (Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9). In our time this position should be ever more strengthened and unanimous. We should defend it jointly both within the framework of dialogue with the legislative and executive branches of power of various countries, as well as in the forums of international organizations such as the UN and the Council of Europe. We ought not to confine ourselves to well-intentioned appeals but should by all means possible ensure that the family is legally protected.

Solidarity among the Churches and all people of good will is essential for guarding the family from the challenges of the secular world and thereby protecting our future. I hope that one of the fruits of the Assembly of the Synod will be the further development of Orthodox-Catholic co-operation in this direction.

I wish you peace, God’s blessing and success in your labors.

Cardinal Marx Clarifies the German Position

Synod 2015: German Bishops Unhappy

Vatican Radio is reporting that the German Group has issued sharp criticism in reaction to the interventions of some of the other Synod Fathers. The Group's Relatio, i.e. the report documenting the work of the Ciculus Germanicus delivered to the plenary session on Tuesday, begins with the words:

The images and comparisons which have been made use of are not only lacking in differentiation and false, but also injurious.

The report went on relate that the Germans felt "great dismay and sadness" upon hearing the statements of certain Synod Fathers regarding the "individuals, content and procedure" of the Synod itself, and wished to clearly distance themselves from what they claimed stood in contradiction to "the Spirit of Accompaniment, the Spirit of the Synod and its fundamental rules."

In other news:

Catholics discover the meaning of Schadenfreude

Popes of Persecution: Evaristus, Alexander I and Sixtus I

Reading N°38 in the History of the Catholic Church

 by

 Fr. Fernand Mourret, S.S.

St. Evaristus (99-105)

At the time of the Persecution under Trajan, the See of Rome was occupied by St. Alexander, the second successor of St. Clement. His first successor was St. Evaristus. We have no contemporary document concerning these two popes. The Liber Pontificalis, composed in the sixth century,^[1] says that St. Evaristus was born of a Jewish father at Bethlehem. It is said this Pope ordained fifteen bishops, seventeen priests, and two deacons, and, for purposes of administration, divided the city of Rome into titles or parishes. These expressions must not make us suppose that St. Clement's successor constructed or consecrated in Rome parish churches properly so called. The reference is probably to private houses, such as the house of the Senator Pudens, which St. Peter is said to have made the meeting-place of the first Christians, or the houses of some other Christians whose names are recorded in Scripture or tradition: Prisca, Aquila, Lucina, Eudoxia, Pammachius, Fasciola.^[2] By the fact that a house or a room was consecrated to liturgical worship, it was marked with a sign or title (titulus), similar to the signs or titles by which treasury officials marked property that was reserved to the service of the emperor. Such is the most likely explanation of this term, which passed into the language of the Church and is today reserved for churches having cardinals as titulars.^[3]

Façade of the Basilica of Santa Pudenziana,
which stands on the site of the house of Senator Pudens

According to the Liber Pontificalis, we also owe to Pope Evaristus the law that a bishop must be assisted in his preaching by seven deacons, whose duty it is to attest the authentic statement of his words against possible charges of heretics.^[4] It is supposed that the preaching here referred to was the recitation of the Preface and Canon. The Prefaces at that time varied with each Mass; into them were sometimes introduced, besides the recalling of the feast, exhortations suited to the circumstances.^[5] Evaristus is supposed to have occupied the See of St. Peter for eight years and to have died a martyr; but neither tradition nor history gives us any details of his death.^[6]

St. Alexander I (105-115)

His successor, Alexander, is said to have governed the Church for ten years, from 105 to 115. The Liber Pontificalis credits him with the insertion into the liturgy^[7] of the words "qui pridie quam pateretur" which precede the words commemorating the institution of the Holy Eucharist, and originating the practice of blessing water, in which salt has been mixed, for use in sprinkling houses.^[8] The official note giving him the title of martyr seems to depend upon a Passio Alexandri which is not contemporary with the events and does not merit more than relative confidence. According to this document, Alexander was beheaded and buried in a catacomb on the Via Salaria.^[9] This Pope may have witnessed the triumphal festivities given at Rome for twenty-three days in 106 or 107, to celebrate Trajan's victory over the Dacians. Pliny relates that 10,000 wild animals were killed in those festivities, and that 10,000 men fought in honor of him who was called "the most merciful emperor."^[10] Probably more than one Christian met his death on that occasion.

In the course of the following years, the head of the Church of Rome might have seen some great works carried out for the adornment of the Eternal City: the enlargement of the baths of Titus; a gigantic aqueduct to bring a new water supply (Aquae trajanae) to Rome; the 260,000 seats of the Circus increased by 5,000; and upon a new forum, ornamented with a triumphal arch and a splendid colonnade, the famous column of Trajan (140 feet high), surmounted by a statue of the Emperor in military uniform with a javelin in his hand. It did not enter Trajan's mind that he was working for Christian Rome, and that one day his statue would be replaced by that of St. Peter, the lowly Galilean fisherman, a greater conqueror than any emperor, since he conquered not bodies, but souls.

Trajan's Column (foreground)

St. Sixtus I (115-124)

The head of the Church chosen to succeed St. Alexander was a Roman called Sixtus. Doubtless, the people and the clergy of the city concurred in his election. If we take Eusebius' words literally, the first four popes after St. Peter were nominated by their predecessor, namely, Linus by St. Peter, Cletus by Linus, Clement by Cletus, and Evaristus by Clement.^[11] If this method of appointment really was in use, it seems not to have been long continued. A number of reliable documents establishes the fact that, in the third century, the election of the bishop of Rome, though his primacy was universally recognized, was subject to the same regulations as that of other bishops; the canons of the Council of Arles (in 314) and of the Council of Antioch (in 341) inform us that they are ratifying an ancient custom when they decree that "a bishop may not be appointed otherwise than by a synod, according to the decision of those bishops who, after the death of his predecessor, have the right of choosing a worthy successor."^[12] It is also certain that the priests and the people took part in these "synods."^[13]

The election of Sixtus I must have occurred at the end of Trajan's reign, because the Liber Pontificalis merely says that he governed the Church in the time of Emperor Hadrian.^[14]

Footnotes

[1] The first three centuries are the poorest in documents on the popes. The few lines which the Liber Pontificalis devotes to each of them are not free from criticism. The last persecution of Diocletian systematically destroyed the Christian books, the registers, and the acts of the martyrs; this loss was irreparable. Only fragments of these documents remain. Under such conditions, the field of conjectures and probabilities is necessarily more extensive than that of fully demonstrated truth. Yet these conjectures we gather with care, out of regard for whatever portion of truth they may contain, and if we set them down as such, we shall know that we are not false to historic truth.

[2] Martigny, art. "Titre," in the Dict. des antiq. chrét.

[3] This is the likely sense of the obscure phrase, "propet stylum veritatis" (Liber Pont. I, 126).

[4] Duchesne, Lib. Pont., I, 126.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Jaffé, Regesta pontificum, I, 4 f.

[7] "In praedicatione sacerdotum." (Lib. Pont., I, 127.)

[8] Ibid. On this ceremony, see the Sacramentarium Gelasianum, bk. 3, chaps. 75 ff., in Muratori, Liturgia romana vetus.

[9] See Acta sanctorum, May, I, 371 ff. On the value of this document, see Tillemont, Mémoires, II, 590, and Duchesne, op. cit., I, xci. "It is probable," says Chamard, "that the editor of the Liber Pontificalis confused Pope Alexander with a famous martyr of that name, who was buried on the Via Nomentana. [...] However, it is no less probable that he had another document from which he obtained the more certain notion of the pope's martyrdom." (Chamard, Les Origines de l'Eglise romaine, chap. 7.) It has been noted that most of the popes of the first three centuries are called martyrs. Although this qualification cannot be explained by precise details, it is true in a rather broad sense. (See St. Cyprian, Epistola ad Cornelium; apud Epistolas S. Cornelii, 7; cf. Tillemont, Mémoires, IV, 364; De Rossi, Roma sotterranea, II, pref.; Chamard, loc. cit.)

[10] Pliny, Letters, VIII, 4; Dio Cassius, LXVIII, 15.

[11] Eusebius, H. E., III, xiii, xxxiv.

[12] Council of Antioch, canon 23. Hefele, History of the Councils of the Church, II, 73.

[13] Cf. Canones Hippolyti, canons 7-28, apud Duchesne, Christian Worship, p. 525.

[14] Lib. Pont., I, 128.

***

Join the discussion at:

Archbishop Coleridge: A New Language Free of Jots and Tittles

Archbishop Mark Coleridge

In yesterday's press briefing, Archbishop Mark Coleridge attempted to pass off as Catholic pastoral theology what can only be described as situational ethics in action:

In the case of the divorced and remarried, we're always dealing with sin. There's no news in saying that, so that's just taken for granted. The Church has traditionally spoken of the second union as adulterous, and I understand why, and I understand the teaching and what lies behind it, including the biblical background. But at the same same time, not every case is the same, and that's where a pastoral approach needs to take account of the difference from situation to situation. For instance, just to say that every second marriage or second union - whatever you want to call it - is adulterous is perhaps too sweeping. For instance, a second marriage that is enduring and stable and loving, and where there are children who are cared for is not the same as a couple skulking off to a hotel room for a wicked weekend. So, the rubrik "audultery" in one sense is important, but in another sense it doesn't say enough. And I think what a pastoral approach requires is that we actually enter into what the Synod is calling a "genuine pastoral dialogue of discernment" with these couples. And the start of that is for people like me to actually listen to their story, and not just swamp them with doctrine or Church teaching. That's crucial, obviously, as the overall framework of any kind of dialoge of discernment.

Just in case anyone stands in need of a refresher, let's review the words of Our Lord:

Whosoever [Latin: Quicumque] shall put away his wife and marry another committeth adultery against her. (Mark 10:11)

Could the flat contradiction between the words of Our Lord and those spoken by this successor to the Holy Apostles be any clearer? Quicumque doesn't leave any pharisaical loophole for permitting some objectively adulterous relationships, even if they appear to be enduring, stable, loving, and fruitful. Our Lord was very specific and very clear: whosoever, i.e. irrespective of all other considerations. Adultery is an objective sin of a particularly grave sort, as it violates both the Commandment of God and a Holy Sacrament of His Church. No amount of "pastoral attentiveness" can plaster over that incontrovertible fact.

When asked what the Archbishop hoped would result from the Synod, he said:

My hope is that we will move towards, without actually accomplishing it this Synod, a genuinely new pastoral approach. Now, at the heart of this, I think there has to be a whole new language. And here, I think of what's been said about Vatican II: that it was primarily a language event. That it was, therefore, something that was far from cosmetic. And I have in mind what the Bible says, that words create worlds. In other words, a new language that can open new doors that we might not even see at the moment, and can create new possibilities.

This matter of a "new language" is one which deserves more careful attention - particularly in light of the above comments from Archbishop Coleridge. We have been led to believe that the substance of Church teaching is not under attack at the Synod, and will not be changed; that all that is being sought after is simply a new mode of expression. But that is not at all what the Archbishop is describing here. His comment that "words create worlds" is a clear allusion, not only to the first chapter of Genesis, where God literally speaks the substance of the universe into existence, but also to the Word of God, through whom all was created. He is speaking of changing language in order to bring about a substantial change. He even tells us that the change being sought after is "far from cosmetic". He is talking - quite plainly, in fact - of preaching a new Word.

Accordingly, the faithful Catholics of Twitter gave the Archbishop the internet equivalent of a sound thrashing. I confess that I, too, joined in the fray with a few cutting remarks of my own. And I don't regret it one bit.

Today, Archbishop Coleridge took to the diocesan blog in defense of his comments:

The big surprise for me has been the ferocious reaction in some quarters to what I regard as my quite moderate remarks. Twitter has been frothing with invective, which shows what's out there - by which I mean the fear, even the panic this Synod seems to have provoked in some. That sort of thing doesn't look like the Holy Spirit to me - red-eyed joylessness cannot be of God. The impression is that, if you touch the slightest jot or tittle not so much of what the Church teaches but of what her pastoral practice has been or how her truth has been expressed, then the whole edifice built up over 2000 years will come tumbling down. If I believed that, I’d be panicking too and hurling lemon-lipped diatribes this way and that. But I don’t believe it and therefore find myself trusting in the path that’s opening before us, with the abuse rolling like water off a duck's back. Voices of fear, even panic, have also been heard in the Synod Hall and the small groups, but what's clearer to me now is that those voices within have strong links to similar voices without. It's also clear that those voices, clinging desperately to some imagined or ideologised past, cannot point the way into the future. History will have its way, however much we try to cling to illusions of timelessness.

Jot or tittle. Where have I heard that before?