The Suppository's Supporting Role In "Stand Up" Comedy...

The Suppository, (aka "The Bitter Pill,") claims to be a Catholic weekly newspaper. In reality, it's as Catholic as the CES, which is to say, it isn't Catholic at all.

It constantly dissents from Church teaching, particularly on matters of sexuality, women's ordination and priestly celibacy. There is frequent criticism of the Holy Father. That, in my mind, means that it has no right to call itself "Catholic." Catholics, according to Vatican II,

"... should, as all Christians, promptly accept in Christian obedience decisions of their spiritual shepherds..." (Lumen Gentium n. 37)

and also:

"...This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra." (LG n. 25)

So, The Suppository should not be sold in our churches... well, not unless we're going to start selling other non-Catholic periodicals (equal opportunities and all that!)

However, The Suppository is also guilty of extremely sloppy journalism. How is it possible to report the recent Stand Up for Vatican II meeting, (bottom of Pg 35, Campaign launched to help save Vatican II reforms from stagnation) naming the speakers, but failing to mention that these speakers are openly dissenting from Catholic teaching?

I am not a journalist, but I was able, with the help of Google Search, to ascertain that Sr. Myra Poole (referred to as "theologian" by Christopher Lamb) is a campaigner for women's ordination, and heads the Catholic Women's Ordination group. The reporter either hadn't done his homework, or he had deliberately omitted to mention this little item of information, in case it put the wrong slant on his report. After all, "Group of concerned Catholics meets to generate support for Vatican II" does have rather a different feel to it than "Group of dissenters from Church doctrine complain that their ideas about Vatican II haven't happened."

Mr Lamb similarly failed to mention that Dr. Michael Winter, another one of the speakers, is a former priest. Is it because he was unaware of this, or did he just not think it important?

I also noticed that Bernard Wynne was described in the report as the founder of Stand Up for Vatican II, and while there was a reference to his role in the Young Christian Workers during the time of the Council, there was no mention of the fact that he is currently the Chairman of Catholics for a Changing Church, another group which is in open dissent from the Magisterium...

Oh dear, oh dear... more sloppy journalism? Or more selective journalism?

Given the editorial policies of The Suppository, I suspect the latter: after all, if I can find out this stuff, anyone can, and I don't really believe that all their journalists are incompetent...

The editorial policies are demonstrated by their refusal to publish a letter giving another (less than complimentary) view of the Stand Up for Vatican II meeting from someone who was actually there. Since they wouldn't publish it, I said that I would...

Dear editor,

In his letter (Lack of nurtured Catholics, 6th February 2010) Frank Regan makes a number of claims about the Stand up for Vatican II meeting which don't tally with my memory, or the detailed notes I took of the event.

First, if Frank Regan thinks the meeting he chaired was a "significant experience of an inclusive church", he needs to get out more. In contrast to the multi-ethnic, socially-diverse reality which is the Catholic Church in the Britain, the meeting's attendees were all white, mostly aged over 70 and in the main middle class.

Secondly, when he claims that those present spoke "without rancour, with love for their Church" he is being economical with actualité. One of the speakers, Sister Myra Poole, recently publicly compared Pope Benedict XVI to BNP leader Nick Griffin. As an active anti-fascist whose great-grandfather was murdered by Nazis in Dachau, I find that comparison contemptible. At the meeting she gave a vainglorious speech, much of which involved her praising herself. When she wasn't doing that she was delivering a paranoid Dan Brownesque rant about the supposed influence Opus Dei has at the Vatican, complaining that the Vatican caused a lot of trouble at the World Council of Churches, insisting that "misogyny is so deep in this Church" and saying that she should tell her congregation that if they get anything from the Vatican "they should bin it".

That's not my definition of speaking without rancour, with love for the Church.

It's true that the laity were spoken of in disparaging terms as "knowing nothing" at the meeting but such sentiments are a function of the fact that groups like Catholics for a Changing Church which organised the meeting have little, if any, grassroots support in British parishes.