A summary of the ongoing
‘gay Mass’ scandal in Westminster,
Basil Hume’s Lavender Legacy
- Sacrilege in Soho -
There was a certain symmetry about the November 2005 release of Rome’s effete Instruction on dealing with homosexually ‘inclined’ candidates who seek admission to seminaries, and headline news in the same month of sexual abuse of young boys by a Benedictine monk at Ampleforth’s preparatory school during Basil Hume’s period as Abbott of Ampleforth (1963-76).
The late Cardinal is said to have acted on two complaints against the clerical pederast concerned by sending him to work in a parish. The usual diabolical excuses have been trotted out to defend this indefensible response to paedophilia and his not informing the police or social services - "norms of the period", "we didn’t know then what we know now" etc. etc..
The symmetry of the November events, however, is not to do with the particulars of the Ampleforth case, but with generalities: the release of an ultimately weak and compromising directive on homosexuality that the dissident Hume would have welcomed, but which will do little to prevent the sort of pederastic homosexual abuse he handled just as insipidly.
It was for good reason that the Hume won plaudits from the "gay" lobby and earned himself the CO sobriquet, "Godfather to the Gays" [See Feb. 1997]. Notorious for his persistent undermining of firm Vatican pronouncements against homosexuality [CO passim], the scent of lavender surrounded the Cardinal and his policies from the outset of his corrupting Westminster reign.
American writer Richard Cowden-Guido recalled this fact in explaining Hume’s fall from grace just prior to the 1985 Extraordinary Synod of Bishops in Rome, when he dashed his high hopes of being a major Modernist influence on proceedings:
The problem, again, was sodomy. Under Hume’s leadership, Quest, the British equivalent of the homosexualist Dignity [in America], had received open hierarchical support virtually from the time Hume became London’s Archbishop in 1976.
The year Hume assumed the Archbishopric, his fellow Benedictine Bishop B.C. Butler formally addressed the 1976 Quest gathering on the theme of "Ecstatic Love." In 1977 an "open symposium" on the "homosexual catholic" was staged in Hume’s own Cathedral Hall in Westminster; in 1979 a "Eucharistic service" was scheduled for the Gay Christian Movement (GCM) at Westminster’s Cathedral Conference Centre, until a presumably intolerant and fundamentalist [Hume terminology for orthodox Catholicism] uproar caused His Eminence to cancel those pans - though not without using the faithful’s money to compensate GCM for the inconvenience. Accordingly, it was not impossible the Cardinal’s priests were reading Quest literature, which for example, formally asserted the goal in Gay Catholic in Britain that "it is entirely compatible with the Christian faith not only to love another person of the same sex but also to express that love fully in personal relations."
Thus it was not a complete surprise when London’s 3 August  Daily Telegraph revealed that Monsignor Anthony Howe, who is no less than Cardinal Hume’s Chancellor of Westminster Catholic Cathedral, "was fined 30 pounds yesterday at Marlborough Street for importuning at public lavatories in Oxford Circus." Such things can happen of course; but in the case of His Eminence’s top aide, "the monsignor admitted persistently importuning men for an immoral purpose," presumably for at least nineteen years, since "the court heard that he had a previous conviction in 1966 for a similar offense." [John Paul II and the Battle for Vatican II: Report from the Synod, Trinity Communications, 1986, pp. 300-301]
One could go on interminably in a similar vein. Famously awash with homosexuals throughout Hume’s tenure, Allen Hall seminary became a clerical finishing school for effeminates, as a friend of the present writer discovered upon arriving at Westminster cathedral for a pre-arranged interview with the Cardinal. He described his mixture of horror and hilarity as Hume’s young aide-de-"camp" minced out to inform him in the most affected manner that the interview, for no given reason at all, was cancelled.
The deviant shadow of homosexuality was omnipresent and the Cardinal’s pro-homosexual agitation endless: whether in his use of subversive "gay" propaganda terms like "homophobia"; his support for HIV/AIDS instruction in Catholic schools despite parental protests; or the concessions he readily made to those arguing for the lowering of the homosexual age of consent and the further decriminalisation of homosexual acts (in appreciation of which, one lesbian lobbyist gushed: "The Cardinal could not have gone further to meet us." - The Independent, 21/7/93).
If his affinity with the homosexuals did not suggest a meeting of actual lifestyles, it was certainly a meeting of dissident minds ineluctably geared to the homosexual agenda.
It is telling, for instance, that one Hume-sponsored cleric, a redtop headline waiting to happen if unsurprising talk of his "gay" activities proves correct, shared his mentor’s private view that there there is no theological objection to women priests. This absurd notion, dissenting from John Paul II’s infallible declaration to the contrary in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, is a pivotal homo-friendly stance. For, if correct, it would wipe out a major argument against the possibility of ordaining homosexuals to the priesthood, as re-stated in the recent Vatican Instruction: to wit the homosexual’s inability to develop that true sense of spiritual fatherhood essential to a priest.
Even those, such as writer Piers Paul Read, who were privately critical of Christian Order for declaiming against the Cardinal both before and after his death, have now, belatedly, got around to addressing his pernicious legacy, so manifest in the cancerous decay all about us. Mr. Read, for one, now reflects:
If, then, a new generation of Catholics has arisen which is largely ignorant of what it means to believe; if few Catholics are equipped to defend their faith; if most Catholics decide for themselves what dogmas to accept and what rules to obey - then Cardinal Hume must take part of the blame. [New Oxford Review May 2005]
His selling out to the homosexuals, however, was of another (more sinister) order. It has left the local Church honeycombed with sodomites, their sympathisers and, doubtless, enough skeletons in closets to neutralise all attempts to obtain justice for Christ and his faithful against sodomitical sacrilege.
Institutionalised by the Cardinal, this hierarchical complicity in the homosexual agenda is embodied in the following summary of the ongoing scandal involving the so-called Roman Catholic Caucus of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement [RCC].
Sacrilege in Soho
The RCC group has been holding regular Masses in Westminster diocese for several years. Affiliated to the ecumenical Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (LGCM), it openly rejects Catholic teaching on homosexuality. The following LGCM ‘statement of conviction’ can be found on its website:
"It is the conviction of members of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement that human sexuality in all its richness is a gift of God, gladly to be accepted, enjoyed and honoured as a way of both expressing and growing in love, in accordance with the life and teaching of Jesus Christ. Therefore it is their conviction that it is entirely compatible with the Christian faith not only to love another person of the same sex but also to express that love fully in a personal sexual relationship." [www.lgcm.org.uk/html/aims.htm]
Over the years, regular complaints have been made to the diocesan authorities at Westminster, to no avail. In fact, until fairly recently, the diocese was openly supporting the RCC Masses. The Autumn 2003 issue of the RCC newsletter published a piece entitled "Lesbian and gay Catholics welcome Cardinal’s resistance to fundamentalist pressure," which read:
"The Roman Catholic Caucus of the Lesbian & Gay Christian Movement has responded to newspaper reports (The Catholic Herald – 5/9/03) that Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, Archbishop of Westminster, has resisted pressure to halt a fortnightly Mass for lgbt Catholics in London’s Soho. Catholic fundamentalist groups and individuals are reported to have made a number of complaints to the Cardinal, the nature of which has not been communicated to the RC Caucus. The RC Caucus Steering Group, following its scheduled Autumn meeting, welcomed the Archbishop’s stance. A spokesperson said: We are glad, at last, to see signs of the Church’s pastors standing up to those who seek a church which excludes rather than welcomes. We welcome the recognition by Westminster’s Vicar-General, Monsignor John Arnold [now Bishop John Arnold], that lesbian and gay Catholics have legitimate pastoral needs which need to be addressed, that ‘a balance has to be struck between the teaching of the Church and her pastoral care’."
Mgr Arnold’s statement, however, flatly contradicts teaching found in the CDF document Pastoral Care of the Homosexual Person 1986, which states in section 15:
"But we wish to make it clear that departure from the Church’s teaching, or silence about it, in an effort to provide pastoral care is neither caring nor pastoral. Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral. The neglect of the Church’s position prevents homosexual men and women from receiving the care they need and deserve".
As the CDF document clearly states, only what is true can ultimately be pastoral, therefore pastoral care is not something that needs to be "balanced" with Church teaching, as if the two were at odds with each other.
Section 17 of the same CDF document states:
"All support should be withdrawn from any organizations which seek to undermine the teaching of the Church, which are ambiguous about it, or which neglect it entirely. Such support, or even the semblance of such support, can be gravely misinterpreted. Special attention should be given to the practice of scheduling religious services and to the use of Church buildings by these groups, including the facilities of Catholic schools and colleges. To some, such permission to use Church property may seem only just and charitable; but in reality it is contradictory to the purpose for which these institutions were founded, it is misleading and often scandalous ... ."
There isn’t space to reprint the whole CDF document here, but it deserves to be read, as it clearly spells out the norms for correct pastoral care for homosexuals. In doing so, it highlights how shockingly Westminster diocese has failed in this regard by allowing the RCC Masses to continue. It can be found on-line at: www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html
The RCC Masses were held on a monthly basis at St Anne’s Anglican Church in Soho until September 2003, when they became a fortnightly fixture at the same venue.
Reports began circulating that RCC was attempting to secure a Catholic church in which their Masses could be celebrated. On 1 February 2004, it was allowed to use the French church near Leicester Square, as St Anne’s was not available on that date. This was reported in the Catholic Herald of 23 January 2004, which article stated that "a Westminster diocese spokesman said the Mass had the full backing of Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor".
Seeing that Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor was doing nothing about this ever worsening problem, concerned Catholics petitioned Rome in an effort to bring the sacrilege to an end.
Subsequently, in mid-2004, Westminster diocese announced the following in a communiqué:
"For some time the Archbishop’s Council has been giving careful thought to the best way of providing appropriate pastoral care for homosexual Catholics in London. It has been guided in this by the teaching of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in its 1986 Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of the Homosexual Person."
It went on:
"The Cardinal has accordingly appointed Fr Jim Kennedy, the Parish Priest of Blessed Sacrament parish, King’s Cross, as the Diocesan point of reference for this pastoral care."
This sounded more encouraging, but the RCC Masses were still being celebrated by priests from the Westminster diocese and from other dioceses, in contradiction of the teaching found in the very CDF document quoted in the above communiqué.
This Westminster pastoral initiative for homosexuals soon ran into trouble. A report titled "Gay Mass row engulfs Westminster" was published in The Catholic Herald on 22 October 2004, in which Fr Shaun Middleton, a priest of the Westminster diocese who celebrates Mass for the RCC, accused the diocese of committing a "violent and provocative act" merely because it arranged a Mass for homosexuals at King’s Cross, which happened to coincide with one of the RCC Masses at Soho.
Obviously, Fr Middleton didn’t think it "provocative" to celebrate Mass for a group that opposes Catholic teaching on homosexuality! And it speaks volumes that he does so without the least concern of being censured by the Cardinal. It was about this time that the Westminster diocesan authorities began to admit - after many years - that the position of the RCC Masses was "anomalous."
Meanwhile, RCC continued to flout Catholic teaching on homosexuality.
On 14 April 2005 it co-sponsored a reception in honour of dissident U.S. nun Sr Jeannine Gramick, who was banned by the Vatican from practising her ministry to homosexuals.
In its Easter 2005 newsletter it published an article titled "Making trouble from within" by one of the RCC Mass-goers which contained the following paragraph extolling sodomy:
"So: here I am, Catholic, homosexual, and in the quaint old-fashioned phrase, ‘practising’ in both respects. (Practice makes perfect). I draw great strength from the community worshipping at St Anne’s, where I have become a regular, but will also soon become a fixture at a suburban parish ..."
One priest who celebrates Mass for the RCC, Fr Bernard Lynch SMA, was described in a Radio Telefis Eireann website article as being "a gay man living in a long term relationship" working as a psychotherapist in London. Enquiries to Westminster diocese as to whether Fr Lynch has faculties to administer the sacraments in the diocese received no response.
The "anomalous" position of the RCC Masses continued, despite assurances that the problem would be resolved.
RCC put out a media release on 23 June 2005, titled "Not the only gays in the parish!" The first part of the release said that RCC would be represented at the Gay Pride London parade on 2 July 2005. It also stated that the group Catholics for Aids Prevention and Support (CAPS) would be sharing a stall at the event with RCC.
CAPS is listed in the Catholic Directory of England and Wales with the approval of the Bishops’ Conference, despite the fact that it has stated from its inception that it will not always reflect Catholic teaching on AIDS and condom use.
This is unsurprising when one notes that the Chair of Trustees of CAPS is Roy Parr, who also sits on the Steering Group of RCC.
Why does the Bishops’ Conference condone such dissent?
The second part of the media release dealt with the RCC Masses at Soho.
Martin Pendergast of RCC said that the next Mass, called the Pride London Mass (to tie in with the Gay Pride London parade event) would take place on 3 July, when RCC would hand over the organisation of these Masses to a Council chosen from among the congregation of the RCC Masses.
This Council would be called the "Soho Masses Pastoral Council" (SMPC) and it was stated that the SMPC would be independent of any other organisation, and that its members would be "commissioned" at the 3 July RCC Mass.
This declaration of SMPC’s "independence" is completely disingenuous. Far from being independent from the RCC, nearly all on the SMPC committee are known to be members of RCC, and three of the six people commissioned are actually on the RCC steering group, so it makes absolutely no difference whether the RCC itself, or whether a group of RCC members/supporters under another name organise these Masses – they are still being celebrated for those who openly reject Church teaching on homosexuality, and therefore the sacrilege continues.
Why RCC was so eager to distance itself from the running of the Soho Masses became apparent very soon after, when it was reported in the Catholic Times of 10 July 2005 that the Cardinal had – after many years – asked RCC to stop using the title Roman Catholic, and to stop arranging Masses in his diocese. The article stated:
"In a letter written on behalf of Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor by Westminster’s (then) vicar-general, Mgr John Arnold told the group’s co-ordinator, Martin Pendergast, that it has ‘no official standing in the Catholic Church’."
The letter adds:
"No permission from the Archbishop of Westminster or the local parish priest has ever been given for a Mass to be celebrated at St Anne’s Anglican church, Soho. The Archbishop of Westminster has appointed a priest who is the point of reference and communication for the pastoral care of homosexual Catholics in the Diocese of Westminster. Since your organisation has no official standing, the cardinal would like you to remove the designation ‘Roman Catholic’ from references to your activities within the Diocese of Westminster and to desist from the arrangement of Masses within the said diocese."
As usual, of course, it’s all ‘nod and a wink’ word games. To date, neither of these instructions have been complied with, as the group still uses the title Roman Catholic Caucus of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement and the Soho Masses are still held fortnightly by members of the group, using the SMPC title.
Also RCC/SMPC and CAPS were among groups listed as supporting an event held on Saturday 3 December 2005, to celebrate the lives of a group of nuns murdered in El Salvador, and for all who live with, or have died from HIV/AIDS. Mass was celebrated at this event, held at St Aloysius’ Church, Phoenix Road, London, by Fr Wilfrid McGreal, O. Carm.
SMPC also held an "Advent Liturgy of Reconciliation with General Absolution" at St. Anne’s, Soho, on Saturday 10 December 2005. Father Brendan Callaghan, SJ, was listed as presiding at this event.
Further evidence of the dissent of RCC/SMPC - if it were needed - was published in The Tablet on 10 December 2005 in an article titled "When faith and feelings conflict", which consisted of three short pieces written by homosexuals who describe themselves as being Catholic, and who are to register their relationships with their "partners" under the Civil Partnerships Act.
One piece is by Celia Gardiner who is on the Steering Group of the RCC and also on the SMPC Committee. She states that the Church’s teaching is "absurd and dangerous" and that we should "abolish the Church’s power to effect a legal marriage."
Another by Bernard Ratigan, also on the Steering Group of the RCC, states that "the official teaching on sexuality of the Catholic Church is seriously flawed and stuck, like the psychoanalysis of Freud’s time, with an emotionally immature obsession with the genitalia" - a blasphemous statement which accuses Holy Mother Church of suffering from the very infantilism and sexual obsession that clinically defines the homosexual condition itself! (Those blinded by the sodomitical spirit, of course, can’t see the irony.)
In spite of all this hateful rage and fury against Catholic truth, there are priests who are still celebrating Mass for, and sacrilegiously offering Holy Communion to this group. While Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor is simply letting the matter ride, taking no disciplinary action against these priests – although he knows precisely who they are.
Men like Canon Alan Griffiths of the Portsmouth Diocese who, on Sunday, 1 January 2006, celebrated Mass for the SMPC.
Meantime, one RCC leaflet advertised Sr Gramick’s return to London for a Lenten residential gathering on 4-5 March 2006 at The Royal Foundation of St Katharine in Limehouse. The leaflet stated that she would be present at the Soho Masses Pastoral Council Mass held on 5 March 2006 and that notorious dissident Fr Diarmuid O’Murchu MSC would "preside at this liturgy". Both Canon Griffiths and Fr O’Murchu have celebrated Mass for this group before.
An increasing number of people apprised of the situation now want to know why Cardinal Cormac is continuing to turn a blind eye to some of his own priests, and priests coming in from other dioceses, knowingly and therefore sacrilegiously, giving Holy Communion to a group of people who have openly declared themselves to be in opposition to Catholic teaching on homosexuality.
It has become clear that RCC/SMPC has absolutely no intention of changing its stance, so until disciplinary action is taken against the priests who celebrate Mass for this group, no further progress will be made, and the sacrilegious Holy Communions will continue to mount.
Wheels within wheels
Voilà! - the Lavender Legacy of George Basil Hume.
The Modernist personification of Pope Felix III’s famous dictum - "Not to oppose error is to approve it, and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and not to confront evil men, when we are able, is no less a sin than to encourage them" - Hume died on 17 June 1999, eulogised by sodomites and so-called Liberal Catholics, the "worst enemies of the Church" (Leo XIII).
Three years later, his former Private Secretary and ardent disciple, Bishop John Crowley of the moribund Middlesbrough diocese, was doubly disgraced in the infamous CAFODGATE scandal - first agreeing to offer Holy Mass in celebration of a homosexual couple’s ‘silver anniversary’, and then, after the public outcry, proceeding to take his seat in the congregation alongside another bishop. [CO, Jan. 2005]
One half of that "couple" was Julian Filochowski, then head of the Bishops’ infamous aid agency, CAFOD. The other was Martin Pendergast of the RCC/SMPC, himself an ex-Carmelite priest.
Thus, not only did CAFODGATE signal the hierarchy’s public ‘blessing’ of sodomy and the homosexual network in general, it explained much about RCC/SMPC’s ongoing immunity in particular.
The unholy Lavender wheels within wheels set in motion by Basil Hume just keep on turning; grinding the local Church to sacrilegious dust.