Jubilee of Digital Missionaries and Catholic Influencers

 The Jubilee for Digital Missionaries and Catholic Influencers takes place over two days, 28th-29th July 2025. The days coincide with the beginning of the Jubilee of Youth which takes place over several days, and reflects the pattern of World Youth Days.

The warnings of Chapter 1 of Vatican II's Decree Inter Mirifica , on the means of social communication, appear exceptionally prescient of the world of digital communications, a world which was inconceivable at the time of its promulgation (translation from Flannery ed. Vatican Council II).

There exists therefore in human society a right to information on the subjects that are of concern to men either as individuals or as members of society, according to each man's circumstances. The proper exercise of this right demands that the content of the communication be true and - within the limits set by justice and charity - complete. Further, it should be communicated honestly and properly. 

In his message for the 2013 World Day of Communications, Pope Benedict XVI wrote of the part that can be played by social media networks: "Social Networks: portals of truth and faith; new spaces for evangelization".

The culture of social networks and the changes in the means and styles of communication pose demanding challenges to those who want to speak about truth and values. Often, as is also the case with other means of social communication, the significance and effectiveness of the various forms of expression appear to be determined more by their popularity than by their intrinsic importance and value. Popularity, for its part, is often linked to celebrity or to strategies of persuasion rather than to the logic of argumentation. At times the gentle voice of reason can be overwhelmed by the din of excessive information and it fails to attract attention which is given instead to those who express themselves in a more persuasive manner. The social media thus need the commitment of all who are conscious of the value of dialogue, reasoned debate and logical argumentation; of people who strive to cultivate forms of discourse and expression which appeal to the noblest aspirations of those engaged in the communication process. Dialogue and debate can also flourish and grow when we converse with and take seriously people whose ideas are different from our own. “Given the reality of cultural diversity, people need not only to accept the existence of the culture of others, but also to aspire to be enriched by it and to offer to it whatever they possess that is good, true and beautiful” (Address at the Meeting with the World of Culture, Bélem, Lisbon, 12 May 2010).

In his message for the 2011 World Day of Communications, Benedict XVI also addressed the question of communicating the Gospel in the digital age:

The task of witnessing to the Gospel in the digital era calls for everyone to be particularly attentive to the aspects of that message which can challenge some of the ways of thinking typical of the web. First of all, we must be aware that the truth which we long to share does not derive its worth from its “popularity” or from the amount of attention it receives. We must make it known in its integrity, instead of seeking to make it acceptable or diluting it. It must become daily nourishment and not a fleeting attraction. The truth of the Gospel is not something to be consumed or used superficially; rather it is a gift that calls for a free response. Even when it is proclaimed in the virtual space of the web, the Gospel demands to be incarnated in the real world and linked to the real faces of our brothers and sisters, those with whom we share our daily lives. Direct human relations always remain fundamental for the transmission of the faith.

Digital missionaries might take to themselves one sentence from the prayer for the Jubilee, bearing in mind that they may not see the response to their posting from people in a very different part of the world:

May your grace transform us into tireless cultivators of he seeds of the Gospel.

Jubilee of the World of Communications (2)

Federation des Medias Catholiques is a member organisation, based in France, of the World Catholic Association for Communications SIGNIS. Towards the end of January each year it organises an Encounter for media professionals Les Journees de St Francois de Sales, named for the patron saint of journalists whose feast day is 24th January. This year the Encounter is being held in Rome and coincides with the Jubilee of the World of Communications.

The overarching theme of the 28th Encounter is "Catholic Media: What identity for what mission?" The titles of the three main plenary sessions of the Encounter address this theme as follows, with the speakers at each session drawn mainly, but not exclusively, from French language Catholic media organisations: 

Plenary 1: Information, formation or evangelisation: what is the mission of Catholic media?

What is the raison d'etre of our Catholic media? Have we as an object to take part in the missionary mandate for evangelising the public: Or do we exist to take part in the formation of Christian readers, to help them grow in the faith?  Or do our media take part in general information, bringing a Christian reading of events, particularly in these times when crises succeed crises? Or are our media all of these at once?

Plenary 2: Does Catholic media have a future?

In a world that appears always more de-Christianised, in the West at least, is there still a place for Catholic media? Do the public still have an interest for our titles, be that for a Christian vision or even to live a daily life of Christian prayer? If we are celebrating now the Jubilee 2025, will we still be here for the Jubilee 2050?

Plenary 3: Is the Catholic media an intermediary for the magisterium like other media?

Our media have an altogether particular positioning, between an editorial line and journalistic demand on the one part, and following the Catholic faith on the other part. How can and must our media situate themselves vis a vis developments of the magisterium? Are we there to relay them, to accompany them or to question them?

The Encounter is also animating an event within the main programme for the Jubilee of the World of Communications, with a session entitled "How can Catholic media be peace makers?". The sister of Pere Hamel (see below) will take part in this session.

On the occasion of the Jubilee, the Holy Father encourages us to be "pilgrims of hope".  What does that mean for us, professionals in Catholic media? Have our media a particular responsibility to communicate this hope, in being voices for peace in a world where conflicts, "the Third World War being fought piecemeal", appears sadly to spread and never to end?

 A final noteworthy feature of the Encounter will be the presentation of the Prix Pere Jacques Hamel. Pere Hamel was killed whilst celebrating Mass in his church in July 2016, and afterwards the Federation des Medias Catholiques, along with the family of Pere Hamel and the Archbishop of Rouen, established this prize. It is awarded for a media contribution that favours the promotion of peace and of  inter-religious dialogue. The prize will be presented during the Encounter by the French ambassador to the Holy See.

[The full programme for the Jubilee of the World of Communications is here, and notably opens with the celebration of Mass for the feast of St Francis de Sales.]

Pope Francis on evangelization and proselytism during his journey to Cyprus and Greece

Some of the comment on Pope Francis' recent apostolic journey to Cyprus and Greece selects out his observation on proselytism for criticism. But it is interesting to be able to read what Pope Francis actually said on the subject, in its full context, rather than in the selectivity of a headline or soundbite.  I copy key texts below.

Further comment, in the wider news media, has focussed on Pope Francis' words with regard to migration and the welcome that is due to migrants today. Pope Francis' voice is perhaps a universal call to the consciences of all peoples, and his visit to meet refugees a sign to the leaders of our nations:

How many conditions exist that are unworthy of human beings! How many hotspots where migrants and refugees live in borderline conditions, without glimpsing solutions on the horizon! Yet respect for individuals and for human rights, especially on this continent, which is constantly promoting them worldwide, should always be upheld, and the dignity of each person ought to come before all else. It is distressing to hear of proposals that common funds be used to build walls and barbed wire as a solution. We are in the age of walls and barbed wire. To be sure, we can appreciate people’s fears and insecurities, the difficulties and dangers involved, and the general sense of fatigue and frustration, exacerbated by the economic and pandemic crises. Yet problems are not resolved and coexistence improved by building walls higher, but by joining forces to care for others according to the concrete possibilities of each and in respect for the law, always giving primacy to the inalienable value of the life of every human being. For as Elie Wiesel also said: “When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders become irrelevant” (Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech, 10 December 1986).

From the homily of Pope Francis at Mass in Nicosia, during his recent visit to Cyprus, in which he refers explicitly to proselytism:

And now, the third step: They joyfully proclaimed the Good News.  After Jesus healed them, the two men in Gospel, in whom we can see a reflection of ourselves, began to spread the good news to the entire region, the talk about it everywhere. There is a bit of irony in this. Jesus had told them to tell no one what had happened, yet they do exactly the opposite (cf. Mt 9:30-31).  From what we are told, it is clear that their intention was not to disobey the Lord; they were simply unable to contain their excitement at their healing and the joy of their encounter with Jesus. This is another distinctive sign of the Christian: the irrepressible joy of the Gospel, which “fills the hearts and lives of all who encounter Jesus” (Evangelii Gaudium, 1); the joy of the Gospel naturally leads to witness and frees us from the risk of a private, gloomy and querulous faith.

Dear brothers and sisters, it is good to see you living with joy the liberating message of the Gospel. I thank you for this. It is not proselytism – please, never engage in proselytism! – but witness; not a moralism that judges but a mercy that embraces; not superficial piety but love lived out. I encourage you to keep advancing on this path. Like the two blind men in the Gospel, let us ourselves once more encounter Jesus, and come out of ourselves to be fearless witnesses of Jesus to all whom we meet! Let us go forth, carrying the light we have received. Let us go forth to illuminate the night that often surrounds us! We need enlightened Christians, but above all those who are light-filled, those who can touch the blindness of our brothers and sisters with tender love and with gestures and words of consolation that kindle the light of hope amid the darkness. Christians who can sow the seeds of the Gospel in the parched fields of everyday life, and bring warmth to the wastelands of suffering and poverty.

From Pope Francis' meeting with bishops, priests, religious, consecrated persons, seminarians and catechists in Athens, in which he places a reference to proselytism in the context of evangelization:

I would now like to highlight a second attitude shown by Paul before the Areopagus, and that is acceptance, the interior disposition essential for evangelization. An attitude of acceptance does not try to occupy the space and life of others, but to sow the good news in the soil of their lives; it learns to recognize and appreciate the seeds that God already planted in their hearts before we came on the scene. Let us remember that God always precedes us, God always sows before we do. Evangelizing is not about filling an empty container; it is ultimately about bringing to light what God has already begun to accomplish. And this was the remarkable pedagogy that the Apostle adopted with the Athenians. He did not tell them: “You have it all wrong”, or “Now I will teach you the truth”. Instead, he began by accepting their religious spirit: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found an altar with this inscription, ‘To an unknown god’” (Acts 17:22-23). He draws from the rich patrimony of the Athenians. The Apostle dignified his hearers and welcomed their religiosity. Even though the streets of Athens were full of idols, which had made him “deeply distressed” (v. 16), Paul acknowledged the desire for God hidden in the hearts of those people, and wanted gently to share with them the amazing gift of faith. He did not impose; he proposed. His “style” was never based on proselytizing, but on the meekness of Jesus. This was possible because Paul had a spiritual outlook on reality. He believed that the Holy Spirit works in the human heart above and beyond religious labels. We heard this in the witness given by Rokos. At a certain point, children fall away from religious practice, yet the Holy Spirit continues to do his work, and so they believe in unity, in fraternity with others. The Holy Spirit always does more than what we can see from the outside. Let us not forget this. In every age, the attitude of the apostle begins with accepting others. For “grace presupposes culture, and the gift of God is embodied in the culture of those who receive it” (Evangelii Gaudium, 115). There is no abstract grace flying above our heads; grace is always incarnated in a culture.

Reflecting on Paul’s visit to the Areopagus, Pope Benedict XVI noted that we must have at heart those who are agnostics or atheists, but take care that, when we speak of a new evangelization, they not be put off. “They do not want to see themselves as a target of the mission, nor do they want to give up their freedom of thought and will” (Address to the Roman Curia, 21 December 2009).  Today we too are asked to cultivate an attitude of welcome, a style of hospitality, a heart desirous of creating communion amid human, cultural or religious differences. The challenge is to develop a passion for the whole, which can lead us – Catholics, Orthodox, brothers and sisters of other creeds, and also our agnostic brothers and sisters, everyone – to listen to one another, to dream and work together, to cultivate the “mystique” of fraternity (cf. Evangelii Gaudium, 87). Past hurts remain on the path towards such a welcoming dialogue, but let us courageously embrace today’s challenge! 

Any Questions?... Any Answers?....22nd/23rd October 2021

Zero made the suggestion just over a week ago that we might go along to a broadcast of BBC Radio 4's Any Questions? The broadcast on 22nd October was coming from Sydney Russell School, very near to us. 

The students who helped to host the event and were the main source of the questions asked during the programme were excellent. I suspect they had a very exciting experience - they were certainly very keen to meet the Education Secretary, Nadhim Zahawi, at the end of the broadcast (I think this encounter had been pre-arranged).

The full broadcast can be heard at BBC Sounds for at least the next 12 months from the date of this post. If you listen from 32:40 onwards you will hear the answers given by the panel to a question about assisted dying, which had been the subject of a debate in the House of Lords that same day.

I reacted with considerable sadness when Nadhim Zahawi and Dr Rosena Allin-Khan, unsure of exactly what they felt about the legalisation of assisted dying, both included in their remarks an expression of concern as to how they would feel if they were to become a burden to their loved ones. I found it sad that two very capable individuals, in good health and contributing significantly to public life, should have this sense that, at some point in the future, they might feel that they were a burden to others.

I was able at the end of the broadcast to catch a brief word with Nadhim Zahawi, to say to him how sad I found it that he felt the way he did. I shared with him that I have been able to see some quite special moments as a volunteer visiting with patients in my local hospital trust who are nearing the end of their lives. I ended by expressing my hope that, as he nears that point, he might not feel as he does now.  Unfortunately, I was unable to catch Dr Allin-Khan to share the same thoughts.

Though the discussion of assisted dying in Any Questions? was only a short part of the programme as a whole, the topic was the only topic in the corresponding Any Answers? broadcast on 23rd October. That programme can also be found on BBC Sounds here, though it only appears to be available for the next 29 days from the date of this post.

I made two mistakes in my attempt to contribute to Any Answers? (I wasn't able to phone in at the time of the programme as I was involved in an all day Teams meeting at the time). I sent in an email, when I should have sent in a text or tweet at the time of the programme itself; and I also tried to respond to things said during the Any Questions? programme. If you listen to the Any Answers? programme you will very readily recognise my tactical errors.

The text of my emailed comment is below:

After attending Any Questions this evening at Sydney Russell School in Dagenham, I would like to submit the following comment to Any Answers:

SUBJECT:  assisted dying

In their remarks about assisted dying, both Nadhim Zahawi and Dr Rosena Allin-Khan were torn as to whether or not they supported proposals to legalise assisted dying.

What saddened me greatly, however, was that both of them expressed a real concern that they might, at the end of their lives, feel that they had become a burden to their family and friends.

In a volunteer role at my local NHS hospital trust I am able to visit with patients and their loved ones as a patient approaches the end of their life; and I see some lovely moments that friends and family are able to spend with a patient at this time in their lives.

Perhaps as a society we need to re-frame the conversation so that it is one about how we love and care for those who are seriously ill; and how we recognise what they in turn have to offer to those who love them and care for them. We need to abolish the language of burden from our discourse.

I hope, at a personal level, that both Mr Zahawi and Dr Allin-Khan will be able, as they grow older, to feel that the experience of illness is not one of being a burden to others but instead an experience of a shared love and care between them and their loved ones.

There was one suggestion made in the Any Answers? programme that, on a considered reflection, has a more unfortunate implication than, clearly, was intended by the contributor making the suggestion, and it passed without challenge in the programme. The comparison was made between how we allow that animals suffering can be put down but we insist on humans in similar conditions having to continue in their suffering. The suggestion that our treatment of animals can provide a model for how we treat human persons has a chilling implication for how we actually understand the dignity of human persons, an implication that is in need of challenge.

Apart from all this, it really is a quite fascinating experience to go along to a programme like Any Questions? in order to see how the programme works and to watch how its presenters and producers go about their jobs - and how other attendees conduct themselves! Even if you just sit and watch what is going on around you, there is a valuable experience to be had. It is also possible to get a more personal feel for political figures who, when interviewed on radio or television, can appear distant and remote.

Zero had done her homework before we went along .... so she was the only person in the room who, during the warm up discussion before the broadcast itself, was able to correctly answer the question about when Any Questions? had first been broadcast .... in 1948.

Twitter, politics and telling the truth - and the end of Donald Trump

 

Media reports no delays for trucks at Dover. Quite unlike the chaos of last month when we were in the single market. Time for the media to cheer up about the majority democratic decision of a great independent nation.

I first saw John Redwood's tweet shown above when it was re-tweeted by my own MP, which took it out of the context of the original author's regular tweeting on the greatness of Brexit.

But there is an important reflection to be had about the first two sentences of the tweet - the last we can recognise readily as containing various strands of opinion with which some will agree and some will not. But the first two sentences are about the truth of events, and so it matters whether or not they are actually true.

Literally, the sentences are true. At the date of the original tweet - 1st January 2021 - the huge queues of lorries on the motorway and at Manston in Kent had cleared. And at the end of the previous month there was chaos on the roads of Kent as lorries queued on the motorway and at Manston. And, yes, on the 1st January the UK had left the single market whereas on 31st December and before the UK was still in the single market and customs union.

But an implied connection between membership or otherwise of the single market and chaos or smooth running at the port of Dover is not true. The chaos in December was caused by the closure of the French border, and then by the insistence on negative COVID-19 tests as a condition before lorry drivers could cross from the UK to France.

Twitter, of course, of its nature, lends itself to this kind of abbreviated post, which does not tell the whole story; and one should not blame John Redwood excessively if his use of the medium incurs a fault that lies in the nature of the medium itself.

But John Redwood is a prominent Conservative MP, so his use of twitter is a political act. It does matter that an elected representative tells the truth. This is particularly the case as an elected representative posts to twitter in the expectation, not only that the original post will be seen, but also in the expectation that it will be re-tweeted by supporters and the "message" therefore passed on widely. And this separates the original tweet from any context provided by previous and succeeding tweets. It is unfortunate when a prominent elected representative posts in the way described above, though I do not expect John Redwood is any more at fault in this regard than many another politician or political commentator, and in all likelihood, and with some grounds, would defend the truth of his post.

Politicians have a particular responsibility to tell the truth because their words act as a lead to what others, and in particular those who follow them in their political sympathies, believe to be true. If they were singers these followers might be described as their fan base; as politicians they might instead be referred to as their power base. In the age of twitter, however, a political power base gains something of one characteristic of a fan base - it becomes a following that can be without its own thought or analysis. The responsibility of a politician to tell the truth in their use of twitter (other social media platforms are available, as the BBC would say) is therefore somewhat greater precisely because of the way in which it can influence others.

This is, in my view, the fundamental issue with Donald Trump's behaviour in the United States since the recent Presidential election, in which a new President, Joe Biden, was elected. Ever since that election Donald Trump has persisted in telling a lie to his power base, by way of social media platforms and public appearances, to claim that he was the winner of the election. An unthinking alliance of others has further promoted this lie; and the power base have bought in to it. With the events at the Capitol this week the dangers represented by that lie became vividly apparent - and, as far as Donald Trump's future is concerned, came home to roost.

Here in the UK it should perhaps act as a warning to our politicians and political commentators that, in their tweeting in particular, they take care to tell the truth.

k, R and the Scandal Reproduction Number

Readers with a background in physics may recall that there was a quantity from the late 1930's research into nuclear physics referred to as k, or the k-number. It refers to the way in which neutrons produced by one nuclear fission in a reactor can then go on to cause further fission in other nuclei of the reactor, leading to a successive chain of reactions. The account in Alwyn McKay's The Making of the Atomic Age, reads as follows:

This is called the neutron multiplication factor, and is usually denoted by k. If, for instance, the number doubles from one generation [reaction] to the next, k=2, and if it increases by  five per cent, k= 1.05. Any increase, be it noted, is at compound interest, and if unchecked, may lead to an explosion, whereas a decrease, with k less than one, implies that the chains will peter out.

In the days of coronavirus, we have become very familiar with the R-number, the virus reproduction number.  This is the average number of people to whom one infected person will pass the virus. Where the physicists of the 1930s were trying to achieve a k-number equal to or just above one so that a sustained chain reaction would be possible, public health officials of 2020 want to achieve a value of R that is less than one so that the transmission of the coronavirus will gradually die out. 

Now, I am not one of those who think that Pope Francis is a Pope who gives rise to scandal among the faithful. But, just for a moment, just suppose I was one such.... would I want to contribute to the scandal reproduction number by posting about it on the internet? In particular, would I want to do that by re-tweeting. embedding or re-posting someone else's observations about how scandalous Francis is? 

Just as with the k-number of the physicist and the R-number of the epidemiologist, there comes a point where a value greater than one for the scandal reproduction number gives rise to a permanent prevalence of scandal, even though the scandal at that stage may bear little or no relation to the original event that is claimed to have given rise to it. When this happens, the responsibility for the scandal lies with those who have been happy, in the first instant, to call it scandal; and, in the second instance and perhaps more significantly, with those who have been willing to repeat the message of scandal after them.

The question that is not being asked about the Tom Daley baby news

"Tom and Dustin are thrilled to share that they are expecting their first child in 2018".

No mention of the mother who is expecting to give birth to the child. One might expect, just as a matter of honesty in language, that coverage would report that a mother is expecting a child conceived on behalf of the all male couple.

Agree or disagree, it should be noted that our society accepts without question a world in which women can be used to give birth.... having been airbrushed out of the equation for the sake of promoting in the media a couple whose marriage was described by Daley only in December as "far from perfect".

Daley and Black are not the first high profile couple to do this.... 

But questions should be raised about babies becoming commodities, the result of transactions. 

Do read the full comment at Christian Today.

I have not followed it fully, but The Archers has a story line about a lady acting as a surrogate for a same sex couple. It will be interesting to see how far this story line explores the issues surrounding surrogacy.

Melanie peut le faire

Occasionally one comes across an absolutely lovely story: Melanie peut le faire. I think it's a story Jerome Lejeune will have enjoyed from his place in heaven.

And here, even on "take two", the children still managed to steal the show!

Abortion: not a single narrative

"I think it is time to give women a say on their own reproductive rights,"...

is the strap line of a beauty contestants recent intervention in Ireland. But the reality of legalised abortion does not follow that single narrative of the empowerment of women with respect to their bodies.

For some of us the availability of legal abortion releases us from the emotional and physical trauma associated with an unwanted pregnancy, but for others there can be various feelings which differ in intensity and depth. Therefore we can only be approximate about the possible effects of abortion and point out those who may be exposed to the threat of extreme long-lasting feelings. Those who appear to suffer, from moderate to severe feelings, tend to be women who:

- have little support, from family, friends and partners;

- wanted the baby but were pressurised into having an abortion by others;

- are already stressed, eg a recent bereavement;

- have a psychiatric history;

- show ambivalence during the  decision phase;

- do not involve their partner in the experience;

- experience late abortion;

- are young;

- consciously or unconsciously use the pregnancy to resolve conflicts, eg bring their relationship back together;

- are deserted by their partners as a result of their pregnancy.

Source: Abortion and afterwards  Vanessa Davies (1991), page 120.

It is only fair that women such as these, with different narratives, should also have their voices heard.

World Youth Day 2016: ..on the BBC

Video diaries from three pilgrims:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36890521

Amoris Laetitia: what Pope Francis really said in nn.302-306

I can recall a conversation many years ago now, in, of all places, an airport coffee bar, in which the subject of conversation was trying to understand why some families succeeded in passing on practice of the Catholic faith to their children and others did not. A strong component in that conversation was the impact that an irregular marriage situation could have, leading to family members even from strongly practicing backgrounds ceasing to live their Catholic faith. That the recent Synod of Bishops meetings, dedicated to the mission of the family in the contemporary world in the context of the new evangelisation, should address this issue is not surprising.

I quote below from one of the sections of Pope Francis' Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia that some are finding problematical (the added emphases in bold are mine):

302. The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly mentions these factors: “imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors”. In another paragraph, the Catechism refers once again to circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility, and mentions at length “affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability”. For this reason, a negative judgment about an objective situation does not imply a judgment about the imputability or culpability of the person....

 304 ..... It is true that general rules set forth a good which can never be disregarded or neglected, but in their formulation they cannot provide absolutely for all particular situations. At the same time, it must be said that, precisely for that reason, what is part of a practical discernment in particular circumstances cannot be elevated to the level of a rule. That would not only lead to an intolerable casuistry, but would endanger the very values which must be preserved with special care.

305. For this reason, a pastor cannot feel that it is enough simply to apply moral laws to those living in “irregular” situations, as if they were stones to throw at people’s lives. This would bespeak the closed heart of one used to hiding behind the Church’s teachings, “sitting on the chair of Moses and judging at times with superiority and superficiality difficult cases and wounded families”. Along these same lines, the International Theological Commission has noted that “natural law could not be presented as an already established set of rules that impose themselves a priori on the moral subject; rather, it is a source of objective inspiration for the deeply personal process of making decisions”. Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end. Discernment must help to find possible ways of responding to God and growing in the midst of limits. By thinking that everything is black and white, we sometimes close off the way of grace and of growth, and discourage paths of sanctification which give glory to God. Let us remember that “a small step, in the midst of great human limitations, can be more pleasing to God than a life which appears outwardly in order, but moves through the day without confronting great difficulties”. The practical pastoral care of ministers and of communities must not fail to embrace this reality.

306. In every situation, when dealing with those who have difficulties in living God’s law to the full, the invitation to pursue the via caritatis must be clearly heard. Fraternal charity is the first law of Christians (cf. Jn 15:12; Gal 5:14). Let us not forget the reassuring words of Scripture: “Maintain constant love for one another, for love covers a multitude of sins” (1 Pet 4:8); “Atone for your sins with righteousness, and your iniquities with mercy to the oppressed, so that your prosperity may be prolonged” (Dan 4:24[27]); “As water extinguishes a blazing fire, so almsgiving atones for sins” (Sir 3:30). This is also what Saint Augustine teaches: “Just as, at the threat of a fire, we would run for water to extinguish it… so too, if the flame of sin rises from our chaff and we are troubled, if the chance to perform a work of mercy is offered us, let us rejoice in it, as if it were a fountain offered us to extinguish the blaze”.

What is the essential argument of these paragraphs?

Without indicating any compromise on Catholic teaching that irregular marriage situations, and in particular the situation of those who are divorced and civilly remarried, represent an objective situation that is sinful/contrary to the law of God, Pope Francis teaches that this does not equate in every case to a situation of mortal sin (= a full separation from the grace of God). The objective situation is what bars the divorced and re-married from receiving Holy Communion, as indicated in n.1650 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and not the discernment as to whether or not the particular situation represents a situation of mortal sin on the part of the people involved:

If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God's law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities.

Pope Francis then intends that the Church propose to those who find themselves in these cases that, in the discernment of their particular situations, they may not be excluded from the life of grace by mortal sin but may have access to grace, the lifeblood of the Church, in the communion of saints. This is not to suggest that this is the case for everyone in an irregular situation; it is subject to discernment, and requires a certain conversion of heart on the part of the people involved (the small step in the circumstances of human limitations). This is where the accompaniment of a pastor comes in to play, and Pope Francis words directed at pastors asks them to take this responsibility for discernment seriously.

And finally, Pope Francis asks that the Church offers clearly the invitation to take part in what he terms the "via caritatis". In other words, those whose objective situations mean that they are not able to receive Holy Communion or to exercise responsibilities such as catechesis, should nevertheless be encouraged to engage in the life of the charity that is Christ-love offered to others. Pope Francis attempts to give this form of participation in the life of the Church a higher value for all, but especially for those in irregular situations, though he expresses it in a language of atonement for sin that is very traditional. This life of charity to others is as much a part of the life of the Church as is being a Eucharistic minister or a catechist.

I suspect that, for those in irregular situations, it will require a sensitivity to the supernatural, to a sense of the life of the spirit, if this pastoral approach is to be effective. Those whose sense of their Catholic faith is more secularised or worldly, and are really looking for a positive judgement on their objective situation, will not find comfort here.

I do wish that those who attack Pope Francis for these paragraphs would, rather than themselves contributing to the confusion that they decry, should read and teach what the paragraphs really do say.

A plague on both your houses

This from the learned pages of the National Catholic Reporter (I have added the underlining):

... welcome back to the 'twilight zone' that was well and truly entered by the Catholic Church on 13/3/13. In the vortex of diabolical mayhem known simply as the 'post-Benedict XVI era', Catholic bloggers are tasked with the mission of encouraging Catholics to stay faithful to the Faith passed down to us while it is further polluted, corrupted and overthrown centrally by men who have overseen its decline locally for the past 30-40 years, while lauding the wisdom of the 'new direction'. Yes, vocations can plummet, Churches can empty and close and the souls of millions can - through deliberate, wilful ambiguity on the part of prelates - be placed in graver jeopardy that ever before, but the esotericist can still claim the 'new direction' to be a success even when objective statistics suggest anything but success. I guess that's just part of what makes the new Catholic gnosticism so much fun.

And this from the rather unintelligent extreme of Tradition (again, I have added the underlining):

A Christian is not supposed to give up hope. She is not to despair.

But after three very uplifting and incredible years under the prophetic leadership and compelling personal witness of Pope Francis, many reform-minded Catholics have again become quite worried about the future direction of their church.

It is not that their honeymoon with the first New World pope is over. (The memory of what a disastrous state the church was in before his election has prevented that from happening just yet.)

But there are growing concerns that, despite being able to effect a seismic change in attitude and ethos throughout the worldwide Catholic family, Francis has done nothing to ensure that this will not all be tossed aside once he is gone.

It should be stated again, without any gloss, that he must move more quickly to make structural and juridical changes that cannot be easily undone by one of his successors.

I am reminded of Abbot Vonier's insight, on which I have commented at length - The Church we are in. I concluded that post as follows:

To return to the reflection based on Abbot Vonier's notion that the Church should not be seen as divided into an "ideal" and a "real", but exists as a single entity whose beauty and holiness shine out to the world. If we look around us during the papacy of Pope Francis, we see the Church that we are in, and some of it - perhaps more on the reform-minded side than on the Traditionalist side - appears pretty far off the wall. But if we take Abbot Vonier's insight seriously, there is an abiding beauty and splendour that is there in all of it. And we need to trust that it is there and that it does still shine out.

The touchstone of that shining out is, as it has ever been, the office of the Successor of Peter. Nothing is to be gained by excoriating - or mis-representing -  its holder. 

Love Pope Francis and love the Church: Four theses

First Thesis: those who spread the narrative of "contradicting the infallibly defined teaching of the Church", or of "confusing and erroneous teaching", on the part of Pope Francis have need to be very considerably more truthful in their presentation and interpretation of Pope Francis' words.

Second Thesis, part (a): Pope Francis' words offered during the in-flight press conference, the morning homily or at an audience are addressed to a specific situation at a specific time: the question of a journalist which may reflect a context from an apostolic journey, the congregation in the St Martha guest house in the context of the Liturgy of that day, the particular situation and experience of those present at the audience. They are not universal teaching, and not intended as such; they should neither be treated as such by commentators nor vilified by those who would wish that they met the standards of universal teaching. One might wish to say, in this restricted sense, that they are not "magisterial teaching" - but see part (b) below - and we should not make more of them than they are by trying to extend them to wider contexts and neither should we denigrate them when we have undertaken that extension ourselves.

Second Thesis, part (b): Though Pope Francis' words are not universal teaching, they do nevertheless represent the manner in which Pope Francis exercises his office as the Successor of Peter. That manner is, as I think Pope Francis indicated in the preference for the title "Bishop of Rome" expressed in the early days of his pontificate, the manner of pastor; and he exercises the office in that manner using the modern means of social communication. [As an aside, one could suggest that Pope John Paul II exercised the office in the manner of a philosopher and Pope Benedict in the manner of a theologian. Try reading their encyclicals from this perspective.]

Third Thesis: Abbot Vonier suggests, in the foreword to The Spirit and the Bride (a book I was led to when it was referenced, I think indirectly, by Pope Francis in a footnote to his Encyclical Gaudium Evangelium), that Catholics should not distinguish between an "ideal Church" and a "real Church" - there is only one Church. It offends this oneness of the Church when Pope Francis' non-magisterial teaching is the subject of insistent critique from a community of bloggers who to a greater or lesser extent see themselves as a kind of "alternative magisterium" to his exercise of his office. This anti-Francis attitude is, quite simply, not Catholic.

Fourth Thesis: Among the aetherial personalities of the "alternative magisterium" there are those who "initiate" and those who "follow", those who start a critique and then those who share it, often somewhat uncritically. In different ways, I think both need to examine their consciences, but perhaps particularly the latter. They need to recognise that what the famous bloggers say is not always either intelligent or true, however learned it might appear, and that they need to think twice before re-posting or linking.

I believe that all of the above can be exemplified from the reaction to Pope Francis' most recent in-flight press conference - see here for some of my articulation of this. This link and this also develop more fully some of the thoughts above. The most recent in-flight press conference, read without a filter, struck me as being exceptionally intelligent and astute.

I would make my own the comment of another blogger at the end of his post:

The Holy Father always makes me want to be a better man.

What Pope Francis actually said ...... video on inter-religious dialogue

The introductory paragraphs of Dialogue and Proclamation, published by the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue in 1991, include the following (with my emphasis added):

Proclamation and dialogue are thus both viewed, each in its own place, as component elements and authentic forms of the one evangelizing mission of the Church. They are both oriented towards the communication of salvific truth.....

[addressing members of the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue] Pope John Paul II declared: "Just as interreligious dialogue is one element in the mission of the Church, the proclamation of God's saving work in Our Lord Jesus Christ is another... There can be no question of choosing one and ignoring or rejecting the other."

The paragraphs also draw attention to Pope John Paul II's encyclical letter Redemptoris Missio, nn.55-57, which discuss the relationship between inter-religious dialogue and the proclamation of the Gospel.

In the video Pope Francis expresses himself in a situation where inter-religious dialogue has its place. In another situation it might well have been proclamation that had its place; but not here. The absence of proclamation when dialogue is the appropriate manner of communication does not manifest any denial of the role of proclamation on the part of Pope Francis.

At one point in the video, the representatives of the different religions express their belief in love. Those familiar with the spirituality of the Focolare, and the engagement of Focolare in inter-religious dialogue, will recognise in this the part played by the notion of God as love in that spirituality: see here, here and, for its relevance to inter-religious dialogue, here. This reference reflects a lived experience of dialogue on the part of a movement that has practised inter-religious dialogue over many years.

Likewise, the reference that Pope Francis makes to us all being "children of God" - and in the context this refers to our all being part of one human family in the order of creation - is to a principle recognised readily in understanding dialogue between the followers of different religions. A common recognition of the unity of the human family, in its origin and a shared destiny, is part of conversation between the religions that constitutes dialogue.

In the closing image of the video, objects representing the four religions shown in the video are brought together and offered to the viewer. It's early January, its Christmastide ..... the symbol of the infant with arms open in welcome .... what stronger representation of Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh and Son of the Father, born for the salvation of the world and made manifest to the nations, can be offered at this particular time of the year?

But perhaps striking - and easy to miss - are the opening words of the video, in which Pope Francis' observes that the majority of people on the planet describe themselves as believers. This represents a clear testimony to the religious dimension of each and every human person, wherever they might be in the world. And, for those in the world who are not believers, that common testimony from a dialogue between the religions has a profoundly evangelising significance.

On Catholic fundamentalism: what Pope Francis said....

Herewith the question and answer from the press conference in which Pope Francis made his remarks about fundamentalism within the Catholic Church. My own translation, with my emphasis added in the English translation so that I can refer to it below.

(Philippine De Saint-Pierre, responsabile della televisione cattolica francese KTO)

Santo Padre, buona sera. Lei ha reso omaggio alla piattaforma creata dall’Arcivescovo, dall’Imam e dal Pastore di Bangui, e oggi più che mai sappiamo che il fondamentalismo religioso minaccia il pianeta intero: l’abbiamo visto anche a Parigi. Allora, di fronte a questo pericolo Lei pensa che i dignitari religiosi debbano intervenire di più in campo politico?

(Papa Francesco)

Intervenire in campo politico: se vuol dire “fare politica”, no. Faccia il prete, il pastore, l’imam, il rabbino: questa è la sua vocazione. Ma si fa politica indirettamente predicando valori, valori veri, e uno dei valori più grandi è la fratellanza tra noi. Siamo tutti figli di Dio, abbiamo lo stesso Padre. E in questo senso, si deve fare una politica di unità, di riconciliazione… - e una parola che non mi piace, ma devo usarla - di tolleranza, ma non solo tolleranza, convivenza, amicizia! E’ così. Il fondamentalismo è una malattia che c’è in tutte le religioni. Noi cattolici ne abbiamo alcuni, non alcuni, tanti, che credono di avere la verità assoluta e vanno avanti sporcando gli altri con la calunnia, con la diffamazione, e fanno male, fanno male. E questo lo dico perché è la mia Chiesa, anche noi, tutti! E si deve combattere. Il fondamentalismo religioso non è religioso. Perché? Perché manca Dio. E’ idolatrico, come è idolatrico il denaro. Fare politica nel senso di convincere questa gente che ha questa tendenza, è una politica che dobbiamo fare noi leader religiosi. Ma il fondamentalismo che finisce sempre in una tragedia o in reati, è una cosa cattiva, ma ce n’è un po’ in tutte le religioni.

(Question from Philippine De Saint-Pierre, of the French television station KTO) 

 Holy Father, good evening. You have praised the platform created by the Archibishop, the Imam and the Pastor of Bangui, and today, more than ever, we know that religious fundamentalism threatens the whole planet: we have seen this also in Paris. Well, faced with this danger do you think that religious dignitaries must intervene more in the political field?

(Pope Francis)

Intervene in the political field: if that means "to do politics", no. To be a priest, a pastor, an imam, a rabbi: this is their vocation. But they do politics indirectly preaching values, true values, and one of the greater values is brotherhood between us. We are all children of God, we have the same Father. In this sense, we must carry out a politics of unity and reconciliation - it is a word that does not please me, but I have to use it - of tolerance, but not just tolerance, living together, friendship! It's like this. Fundamentalism is a disease that is present in all the religions. We Catholics have some, not some, many, who believe they have the absolute truth and move ahead sullying others with calumny, with defamation, and doing evil, doing evil. And I say this because it is my Church, we as well, all of us! We must fight this. Religious fundamentalism is not religious. Why? Because it leaves out God. It is idolatrous, like the idolatory of money. To do politics in this sense of persuading these people who have this tendency, is a politics that we religious leaders must do. But the fundamentalism that ends always in a tragedy or in offences, is a bad thing, but there is a little of it in all the religions.

Pope Francis' references to idolatory, and to the idolatory of money, contain a reference back to his answer to an earlier question during the press conference, though seen in isolation from that they appear a bit out of context or exaggerated. We can see that a headline to the effect that "Pope Francis condemns Catholic 'fundamentalism'" misses the context that is there when Pope Francis' answer is read as a whole - namely that it represents a situation of fundamentalism as a challenge in all religions, which includes Catholicism. It is also worth noting Pope Francis' understanding of what constitutes fundamentalism - not the claim to absolute truth, but the movement from that claim to truth to an unyielding deprecation of others (cf my emphasis and note the "and" in Pope Francis' words).

Pope Francis' answer - and the wording of the question - also hint at a much wider discussion that might be had about the engagement of religion in the field of politics and power.

[As an aside, it is also possible to recognise in the reference to a "politics of unity and reconciliation" an inspiration that is found in the Movement for Unity in Politics of the Focolare movement.]

The anti-Francis attitude: it isn't Catholic ....

The persistence of some in taking every opportunity their imagination suggests to broadcast across the aether their projections (or to re-broadcast uncritically the projections of others) of what Pope Francis has said and what they think he should have said instead ..... it has quite honestly become tiresome beyond belief. Do give over, and get a life ...

It isn't Catholic to operate with a category of "faithful Catholics" and the presumably unfaithful others .... as if one can allocate oneself uncritically to the wheat without recognising that you might actually be among the tares .... both of which the Lord allows to grow side by side in his field and which, for most of us, grow alongside each other in our hearts and souls. And to then characterise Pope Francis as if he were running a campaign against you .....

Neither is it Catholic to work with categories of "Traditionalist", "Liberal" and "Conservative" - the last of which is all too readily used by the adherents of the first to pigeon hole those they think lack the intelligence of faith to see what they think is the obvious heresy before their eyes (but which, in reality, is largely the recycled gossip of the imagination of a few who, for some reason I cannot fathom, gain a credibility that unfortunately doesn't justify the bits and bytes strewn across the electronic media).

And the real underlying point: almost without exception, what is projected on to Pope Francis words, what he is interpreted as saying, is not justified from what he actually said. Put simply, the anti-Francis rant isn't true .... but it is put about with a persistence and a lack of critical faculty that makes the saying of it enough for it to believed. All that "confusion" caused by Pope Francis ... isn't most of it the result, not of Pope Francis' words, but of the commentary that the great and the good of a sector of the Catholic electronic world propagate?  If you have difficulty understanding him .... aren't you the one who is the source of confusion if you broadcast your own non-understanding to the world at large?

Let's take Pope Francis' observation, some time ago now, about the risk of living the Christian life as a kind of ideology, rather than as a living encounter with Jesus Christ, and so with the life of the Trinity. All that anxiety about a comment aimed at criticising the "faithful" or "Traditional" Catholic .... when, if you read Luigi Giussani's The Religious Sense you find a discussion of ideology in a context of the possibility of religious faith. It wasn't a targeted arrow at all, but a reflection of a conversation in an ecclesial movement with which Pope Francis is very familiar. And more recently I have been able to readily find on my bookshelves texts that place Pope Francis remarks about the risks of gnosticism and a certain pelagianism in similar contexts. And so on. If you think he is just nagging and criticising you .... take the trouble to read around a bit and place his remarks in the context of the ecclesial conversation ...

And the most recent occasion of shock - horror ..... is a complete non-story. Read properly what Pope Francis said in reply to the question from the wife of a Lutheran, recalling that he speaks of discernment of conscience in the sense intended by the Spiritual Exercises and not in a liberal sense .... and the confusion is being sown by the all too ready commentary. It simply isn't true to give the impression that Pope Francis said to the lady that she should make her own decision on the matter.

And the Year of Mercy .... in which, in case you missed it, the Sacrament of Penance (confession) is clearly going to have a central role. And which is absolutely in line with the teaching of both John Paul II and Benedict XVI on divine mercy. There is no justification in trying to rubbish the Year itself, or Pope Francis' understanding of mercy.

The anti-Francis attitude is not Catholic in two further ways. Read the blogs .... and doesn't it form a kind of alternative Magisterium? .... A Magisterium that, if you challenge it, you find yourself being told that you are ignorant of the Catholic faith?.... with its authorities who are above reproach and who are lauded to the high heavens as "defenders of the faith"? And doesn't it involve a "pick-n-mix" approach to Pope Francis himself? Take the bits you don't like and slate them across the networks .... ignore the bits that you should like. Cafeteria Catholicism .... but taking and leaving different parts of the menu than those normally associated with this phrase .... "hermeneutic of continuity" when it suits, but not when it doesn't .... big up Pope Benedict, do down Pope Francis (I am personally convinced that those who play off Benedict against Francis didn't really get Benedict either ...).

It is tiresome.....it's not Catholic ....it's not true ....... and we can all do without it.

Infallibility

Extracts from a piece by George Weigel at the Catholic Herald. [I know, I wasn't going to read the "media synod", but I read this by accident...]

...too much of the mainstream media – and, increasingly, the blogosphere media – believes in its unlimited infallibility with a tenaciousness that makes Pius IX’s grip on his quite limited infallibility seem tenuous by contrast....

And if anyone challenges the infallibility of the traditionalist blogosphere .... woe betide!

Eight months after Pope Francis was elected, I wrote in the Wall Street Journal that he had become a global Rorschach blot, on to which Catholics and non-Catholics alike were projecting their hopes and fears, often without paying serious attention to what the Pope actually said or did. The Rorschaching of the Pope has not abated since then; it’s intensified, and it’s the primary distorting filter through which a lot of bad reporting and commentary on Synod-2015 has been run.

This Rorschaching knows no ideological bounds: the conservative and traditionalist Catholic blogosphere has been just as sunk in it, albeit with an obviously different analysis of What It All Means, than the usual suspects on the port side, like the National Catholic Reporter and the New York Times. But to cite an old friend previously quoted in these Letters – Sergeant Joe Friday of the 1950s detective series, Dragnet – any serious analysis of Pope Francis and Synod-2015 should begin with “Just the facts, Ma’am.” ..

Yes. Look at the original texts Some of those infallible sources definitely need to be triangulated with other sources before you can trust what they are saying and repeat it to the aether. (Is Pope Francis really proposing decentralisation of doctrinal teaching?...)

Pope Francis is, admittedly, a complex man. But why do Catholic traditionalists miss his defence of orthodoxy as badly as the two Times, that of New York and that of London? It’s not a great mystery why the Times people miss, or wilfully ignore, the Pope’s commitment to the truths the Church holds; it ill serves the cultural, social, and political purposes into which they’d like to recruit Pope Francis as a trophy chaplain. But serious Catholics ought to know better.  

Give Away Lines (2): From the Traditionalist Camp

From here and then circulated elsewhere (with my italics added):

My deepest fear is that if Pope Francis continues to push the Church toward heresy that we may experience a war among the faithful that would make Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s opposition after Vatican II appear like a simple objection!

So it is taken as read that Pope Francis is pushing the Church towards heresy? There really isn't a glimmer of truth in that assertion.

But the "give away" is not so much that something is being said about Pope Francis that isn't true. The "give away" is about how it comes to be that such a point of view has any traction at all amongst those who self identify as traditionalists (or as "faithful Catholics" or "loyal Catholics").

If you keep saying it, and saying it, and saying it again, ..... within your own self-referential circle ..... well, you end up believing it. And you end up convincing yourselves that you are on shaky ground and without any certainties of faith any more. And you all buy in to a fear that should not have been aroused in the first place. WYSIWYG - what you say is what you get. You end up needing to "mind the gap" between your own little world and the real one....

Those who blog and re-blog, and tweet and re-tweet, need to recognise their share in the responsibility for this .....

Those who find excuse to, oh ever so reasonably (not), attack Pope Francis time and time again need to recognise their share in the responsibility for this too, perhaps particularly those who have a certain discretion about it but nevertheless help to create the aetherial environment in which ideas gain traction that are not worthy of credibility .....

I suspect that Pope Francis' word for much of this would be "gossip" - and his scathing comment on the harm that it does to all involved is very much on the record.

Auntie's advice ....

"Is it true, is it kind, is it necessary?"

How much consternation would be avoided if we were always to ask even the first of these questions before posting, linking or commenting ...?

Those Photographs

The news media are reporting the leaking on line of "intimate photographs" of a number of celebrities: BBC news report here, and I assume a range of reporting elsewhere in today's electronic and print media.

The Concise Oxford English Dictionary offers for this context the following definition of the word "modest":

(esp of woman) decorous in manner and conduct, scrupulously chaste 

My edition dates back to 1982, so the qualification "esp of woman" might have been removed from more recent editions. Modesty clearly applies just as  much to men as it does to women.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church discusses modesty in the context of the Ninth Commandment and in reference to purity and chastity.

2521 ....Modesty protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity.

2522 Modesty protects the mystery of persons and their love. It encourages patience and moderation in loving relationships; it requires that the conditions for the definitive giving and commitment of man and woman to one another be fulfilled. Modesty is decency. It inspires one's choice of clothing. It keeps silence or reserve where there is evident risk of unhealthy curiosity. It is discreet.

2523 There is a modesty of the feelings as well as of the body. It protests, for example, against the voyeuristic explorations of the human body in certain advertisements, or against the solicitations of certain media that go too far in the exhibition of intimate things. Modesty inspires a way of life which makes it possible to resist the allurements of fashion and the pressures of prevailing ideologies.

2524 The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another. Everywhere, however, modesty exists as an intuition of the spiritual dignity proper to man. It is born with the awakening consciousness of being a subject. Teaching modesty to children and adolescents means awakening in them respect for the human person.

2525 Christian purity requires a purification of the social climate. It requires of the communications media that their presentations show concern for respect and restraint. Purity of heart brings freedom from widespread eroticism and avoids entertainment inclined to voyeurism and illusion. 

The BBC report linked above suggests that in at least one case the leaked photographs are not recent, and suggests that the celebrity involved may recognise in some way a certain regret about them, reportedly having deleted them herself a long time ago.

The media reporting, however, seems to focus exclusively on the "scandal" caused by a security breach that has revealed photographs from private electronic accounts. A privacy lawyer is quoted in The Times' coverage, for example, as saying:

... the leak was a "shocking" violation of privacy given its scale and content.

The security breach and the violation of privacy seem to be more the cause of scandal than the content of the photographs themselves (but see Fr Alex' comment here).

Should not the question of modesty - in reference to both the taking of the original photographs and in reference to their publication - not also be part of the media conversation? Clearly the different photographs will have been taken in a range of different circumstances, and it would therefore be quite wrong to adopt an attitude of condemnation towards those the details of whose actions are not known to us. But at a time when the use of smart phones by young people to share "intimate photographs" of each other ("sexting") is a serious concern, does not this occurrence provide a salutary warning in favour of modesty? The question of what photographs it is - or is not - appropriate to take seems to me an important part of the public debate, and we might begin to expect celebrities to set a good example in this regard.

[Modesty is not just a question for those who hold religious beliefs. Its relation to the dignity of the person means that it is a notion accessible also to those who hold no religious belief.]