Loftus, farewell

Fr Nicholas Schofield celebrating the EF in his church of Our Lady of Lourdes, Uxbridge,
for the Chesterton Pilgrimage (an event promoting the Cause of GKC).

I knew it had to happen one day: I would open my copy of the Catholic Times (I subscribe to all the Catholic weeklies), glance at Fr Francis Marsden's headline, turn the page to Fr Nicholas Schofield's chosen topic for the week and there, taking up most of the page under Francis Davis' regular slot, would be ... something other than Mgr Basil Loftus.

The day was today. Instead of Mgr Loftus' byline, there was a photograph of a young priest in a tree. A little odd, you might think, but the story was about sport.

I understand this is a permanent break, not a momentary pause, so it is something of significance.

Unpublished letter to the Catholic Times on Loftus

I sent this off long enough ago to give them plenty of time to find room for it if they wanted to publish it. However, I didn't seriously imagine that they would; it is more of a protest than anything else. Only a periodical with a much greater self-confidence than the Catholic Times would publish a letter so critical of their editorial policy.

The letter I refer to by Miss Thomas was excellent, incidentally; some of my readers may have seen it on Facebook. The subject of the correspondence was Loftus' extraordinary (even for him) attack on Archbishop Naumann of Kansas City, for being pro-life, which I discussed here.

I've pinched the image of the mythical Basiliscus Loftus from Bruvver Eccles.

------------------------------

Sir,

Unlike Mgr Basil Loftus, I was unable to detect 'intemperate language' in the letter of Miss Rhoslyn Thomas (8th December 2017), which he 'regrets'.

Mgr Loftus: pro-lifers are 'terrorists'

Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas

I've waited to see if there if would be any reaction in the Letters page to Mgr Basil Loftus' latest outrage: an attack on Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, in which he described the Archbishop, and any anyone like him who was actively pro-life, as a terrorist. (Catholic Times, 24th November 2017.)

His column is, as usual, both bizarre and incoherent. Remember, as you read it, that the Catholic Times is sold in the backs of Catholic churches every weekend: this is a newspaper, in other words, with ecclesiastical approval. I transcribe the key section for the record, since the paper has no online presence, even for subscribers.

No-one is more supportive [than Pope Francis] of the rights and paramountcy of all marginalised people, including the unborn - but he is totally opposed to the purportednly pro-life antics of men such as Archbishop Naumann, the recently elected head of the American bishops' 'pro-life committee'.

The Psychology of Traditionalism

Ordinations for the Fraternity of St Peter in Wigratzbad in 2009

Guide to this series:

The Psychology of the Rigid Personality

The Psychology of Military Incompetence

The Psychology of Ecclesiastical Incompetence

The Psychology of Traditionalism

Before my series of posts about Norman Dixon's Psychology of Military Incompetence, I'd been writing about Mgr Basil Loftus, who exemplifies the attitude that respect for rules indicates a conformist, 'anal', weak-ego individual. This inference enables him, and many others, to conclude that theological and liturgical conservatism and traditionalism manifests a kind of 'rigidity' incompatible with pastoral effectiveness.

I have shown what is wrong with this argument in general terms. It is a truism that people with weak egos and an unhealthy fear of failure will be risk-averse, and will seek the approval of their peers and superiors by conforming. In the post-conciliar situation, however, this approval is not forthcoming to conservatives and traditionalists in mainstream Catholic or non-Catholic institutions: it is, rather, given to those who toe the liberal line. It is rather remarkable that Loftus and his like have not noticed this, but as I have observed that classical presentations of the psychological theory they draw from, including Norman Dixon's, are prone to confuse the risk-taking non-conformism of a person with a strong ego and moral courage, with the liberal violation of traditional norms, and with the norm-violation of the merely self-indulgent.

Loftus on sacrality

A glimpse of something a bit different from the everyday world.

In my last post on the egregious Catholic Times columnist Mgr Basil Loftus, I noted his hatred of the Reform of the Reform and of the Traditional Mass. This hatred extends to the Ordinariate liturgy as well, to which he referred on 7 July 2013:

How can we tolerate, let alone encourage, alternative and extraordinary forms of worship within the parameters of the Catholic Church, whether in the extraordinary form of Mass or in personal ordinariates, where the ‘clamour’ or pomp now rightfully being expunged from the Church lingers on? At the moment this is only a question. It may well soon become a real problem.

This aggressive attitude alternated for a time with expressions of a live-and-let-live philosophy, which of course has for the most part been Pope Francis' own, on liturgical matters. In his more recent columns, however, Loftus has taken a more consistently hostile view of all liturgical developments which aim at what we might call a resacralised liturgy. The 2011 translation of the Ordinary Form is an example upon which he constantly harps; others include the 'Benedictine arrangement' of candles on the altar when the priest celebrates 'facing the people' (i.e. the traditional 'big six' candles, plus crucifix, obscuring the people's view of the priest); the use of Latin; the non-use of Altar girls; the Traditional Mass; and above all the celebration of Mass ad orientem, with the priest and people facing the same way, east.

Update on Mgr Loftus

Eat your heart out, Basil. That's Archishop Malcolm McMahon of Liverpool with the FSSP
in Warrington, about to ordain two of their men priests.

I've not been blogging about Mgr Loftus recently; he is terribly repetitive and I've said pretty well everything which can usefully be said, while other issues have arisen. However, since the big push I made about him in March 2015 a few observations may be of interest to my readers.

Long-term readers may recall that at that time I prepared a dossier of his jems, and I didn't keep this document to myself. Reviewing my ever-growing paper archive of his columns since then, it is clear that this had some effect. Mgr Loftus must have been given some kind of warning by person or persons of authority, whether it be bishops or the Editor of the Catholic Times in which his screeds are published. So my project was not a waste of time.

The Traditional Mass and Ecclesiology

I'm reposting this again because the general issue of obedience to casual words of the reigning Pope is current again, and also because this incident is recounted in Leo Darroch's book on the history of the FIUV which was launched in Rome on Sunday, and is available to buy here.

----------------------
Basil Loftus has circled back to his story about Cardinal Benelli in his latest column in the Catholic Times, so I thought I'd repost this response to it from April 2016

 -------------------------------------

Giovanni, Cardinal Benelli

Thanks to the archives of the FIUV, I can shed some light on something mentioned by Mgr Basil Loftus in a column I discussed the other day. He'd picked up the claim that Cardinal Benelli had once said to the President of the Una Voce Federation (FIUV), Dr Eric de Savanthem, that there was a connection between the Traditional Mass and ecclesiology. (Contrary to Loftus, Benelli was actually made a cardinal the year after this meeting, in 1977.)

I noted that Lofus didn't cite a source for this: when one realises what his source is, it is easy to see why he'd rather his readers didn't know. Here is a longer extract: I've emboldened the words quoted verbatim by Loftus to the hapless readers of the Catholic Times on 27th March.

When the President of Una Voce at an interview with Archbishop (now Cardinal) Benelli in Rome in October 1976, pointed out the existing liturgical chaos and asked how, in view of this state of things, the suppression of the old Mass could be justified, he was told that “those who wish to retain the old Mass have a different ecclesiology.” This from one of the closest advisors of the then Pope; it meant that those who were faithful to Catholic tradition were now to be treated as dissidents. The phrase quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus (“What has been believed always, everywhere, and by all”) as a criterion of orthodoxy bad now been rejected in favor of a new Party Line which contradicted the Church’s entire previous tradition. What was forbidden and condemned yesterday becomes lawful today, and mandatory tomorrow. What had always been seen as black, is now white, and vice versa─because the Party says so. This comes close to the Bolshevik criterion of morality: what is right or wrong is simply what helps or hinders the Party.(Source: SSPX USA District)

Loftus attacks Archbishop Sample: on chant and children

Further to my recent posts about Montessori and children, I'm reposting this from 2014. I've not been keeping up my review of Mgr Basil Loftus output recently, but whenever I look at his columns I see that they make just as much sense as they ever did.

Children at St Mary Magdalen, Wandsworth, a Mass with Chant propers and polyphonic Ordinary.

Every now and then Mgr Basil Loftus makes reference to singing in Mass. It appears to be one of his many obsessions. A classic was his suggestion that when the General Instruction recommends a chant or song at Communion, this rules out adherence to the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum's requirement that the Communion Plate be used, and the recommendation in that instruction, now a requirement of our own Bishops' Conference, that the Faithful make an 'act of reverence' before receiving Communion, because of the difficulty of multi-tasking...

It is not surprising, therefore, that when he turns his attention to chant and hymns he comes out with the usual muddle and deliberately misleading claims.

He starts by quoting Archbishop Sample of Portland, Oregon:
'It is clear that the Council calls for the liturgy to be sung. In recent decades we've adopted the practice of singing songs at Mass. We take the Mass and attach four songs or hymns to it. But this is not the Church's vision. We need to sing the Mass. It is meant to be sung. The texts of the Mass are meant to be sung.'

Children at the LMS Pilgrimage to Holywell.

Loftus' comment on this typifies his disregard for making sense, as well as good manners or respect for his superiors:

The archbishop's observation, while very helpful, is also both simplistic and deceptive.

Was it a subeditor who added the phrase 'very helpful'? Or is Loftus able to hold two incompatible judgments in his head at the same time?

Loftus calls for withholding donations from the Church

Simple enough? Cardinal Burke celebrating Low Mass in Oxford.

At the end of a rambling column in the Catholic Times (26th June 2015), largley made up of quotations from Laudato si', Mgr Basil Loftus suddenly calls for action by the lay faithful: to demand less spending by dioceses and parishes, and more of the Church's money being given to the poor.

'And if the right answers are not forthcoming, then we have Francis' blessing on boycotts - on withholding money from purposes which do not contribute to simplicity and the alleviation of poverty. The church collection, like "purchasing", "is always a moral - and not simply economic - act."

The internal quotation is fromt the Encyclical, but of course it is talking about purchases, not the fulfilment of the Fifth Precept of the Church and Canon 222 that we support our pastors. Loftus is suggesting that if we don't like all the spending priorities of our priests and bishops, we should starve them of cash. Tempting though that might be, it is only because reasonable people allow a degree of latitude as to what their donations can be spent on, that we have bishops and priests at all.

Loftus: involuntary untruths or wilful lies?

What are we to make of this statement from the latest column (19 June 2015) by Mgr Basil Loftus in The Catholic Times?

The very words of the sacrament of baptism have changed - in the early Church baptism was not with a Trinitarian formula, but "In the name of Jesus".

It is scarcely conceivable that Loftus could be ignorant of the final two verses of the Gospel of Matthew (28:19-20)

19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

If he knows it, however, his statement would appear to be a barefaced lie.

Loftus never says anything for which he could not offer some defence, however specious. In this case it is the fact that the phrase 'baptised in the name of Jesus' appears several times in Acts, eg 2:38.

But such a defence would carry no real weight. It makes no sense to say that Acts represents the practice of 'the early Church' whereas Matthew does not.

1. There is no scholarly consensus that Luke/ Acts is earlier than Matthew; quite the reverse.

2. The term 'early Church' covers the first centuries, when Matthew would in any case have been known. Matthew was also known in the 'primitive Church', which refers to the very earliest period and which Loftus may have in mind, even if it had been a bit later than Luke / Acts. The very existence of Matthew rules out the claim that the Trinitarian formula not not used at that time.

3. The apparent conflict between Matthew and Luke is easily understood on the supposition, agreed by a wide range of scholars, that 'baptism in the name of Jesus' does not exclude the use of the Trinitarian formula, but merely distinguishes Chrisitian baptism from the 'Baptism of John' (John the Baptist), which is explicitly contrasted with it in Acts 19:1-5.

As usual, Loftus would have something to say if accused of bad faith. But what he would have to say, as I have reconstructed it for him, is itself subject to accusations of bad faith. He knows perfectly well that the Church has never accepted the idea that baptism without the Trinitarian formula would be valid, and has a perfectly reasonable way of understanding the Acts references to 'baptism in the name of Jesus' in accord with this. To take up the contrary view is to take up heresy.

Loftus is deliberately leading his readers up the garden path on this subject, without addressing the real teaching of the Church or the arguments for that teaching. This is dishonest, and worse than dishonest. It is a sin against Faith, if conscious. And humanly speaking, how could it not be conscious?

This is one sentence in this column. I could have written as much or more about each of about a dozen other sentences, in which he most notably denies 1 Cor 11:29, and (more or less) calls it a human obstacle placed on Christ's mercy. But we've heard this one before, and life is short.

Support the work of the LMS by becoming an 'Anniversary Supporter'.

Published letter on Mgr Loftus

With others, I recently wrote a letter to The Catholic Times, The Tablet, and The Scottish Catholic Observer to protest at the public scandal caused by the writings of Mgr Basil Loftus in these publications. Only the Scottish Catholic Observer deigned to publish my letter, in a form cut to ribbons by the Editor, Liz Leydon.

In light of this, and in response to Loftus' latest outrages, Patricia McKeever of Catholic Truth Scotland has started a petition to the two bishops with authority over Mgr Loftus: his ordinary, Bishop Marcus Stock, and the Bishop of the diocese where he lives, Bishop Hugh Gilbert.

Since I have written to these bishops, already, privately, on this matter, without response, a public letter seems to me to be justified. However I should emphasise that this is Miss McKeever's petition, not mine.

Here is the letter as it appeared in the Scottish Catholic Observer, with the bits edited out inserted in red. The black square brackets and elipses are retained from the published version.

SCO, Letters, 24 April, 2015

Concern over writings of monsignor 

WE, THE undersigned, believe the time has come to publish a protest against the [the stream of personal abuse, libellous accusations, and theological error, contained in] articles and letters [written] [published in The Scottish Catholic Observer, The Catholic Times, The Tablet, and elsewhere] by Mgr Basil Loftus. These have been appearing for more than 20 years, but have become particularly unacceptable in recent months.

In these articles Mgr Loftus describes a respected Cardinal, Malcolm Ranjith, as a ‘Cappa Magna fetishist’, the arrangement of candlesticks on the Altar favoured by Pope Benedict as ‘dumb insolence’, calls for ‘anger’ against Bishop Mark Davies, accuses the Apostolic Nuncio of gross financial extravagance, denies that the arisen Christ had a ‘physical body’, and declares that up to three traditional religious institutes in the United Kingdom are characterised by ‘at least quasi-schismatic ecclesiology’, which is ironic coming from Mgr Loftus whose theology is far more questionable. Most recently he has accused the Congregation for Divine Worship under Cardinal Cañizares of behaving like the Gestapo.

It is fast becoming a scandal…[that Mgr Loftus is permitted to defame the reputation of good priests, religious and laity in this manner.] Out of respect for the Church, his victims have thus far refrained from taking [any] [legal] action. [but, if this abuse is allowed to continue, action may become necessary.]

His writings disturb the peace of the Church, they violate the respect due to our bishops, and they deprive numerous individuals of the good name which is their right under canon and secular law.

We call upon Mgr Loftus' canonical superior, Bishop Marcus Stock of Leeds [and others concerned] to take the necessary steps [to take the necessary steps to bring Mgr Loftus’ campaign of abuse to an end.]

A dossier of quotations from Mgr Loftus is available on the website of the Latin Mass Society.

Dr Joseph Shaw

James Bogle

Fr Michael Clifton

Fr Thomas Crean OP

Support the work of the LMS by becoming an 'Anniversary Supporter'.

Loftus: does 'e tell it like it is?

The Sacrifice that reconciles God and Man

Mgr Basil Loftus' striptease of the Faith - discarding a discipline here, a doctrine there - is a remarkable spectacle. He has convinced himself that things are going his way so his spiritual nakedness is revealed more and more. Here are some gems from his Catholic Times column of 24th April 2015.

His grasp of Church politics must surely appal those he claims to support.

Religious Orders which abused the 'Tridentine' rite of Mass, in order to make political rather than liturgical points, found themselves [under Pope Francis] in special measures. Bishops who were deemed toi be imprudent and over-zealous in welcoming to their dioceses priests and religious opposed to Vatican II were sharply called to order, and their ringleader, Mario Oliveri, in the Italian diocese of Albenga-Imperia, was stripped of all his episcopal powers.

FIUV 'fundamentalist'?

Spot the suspect ecclesiology: Archbishop McMahon,
then bishop of Nottingham, preaching at an LMS
training conference

27th March, from Mgr Basil Loftus in the Catholic Times:

It is not the liturgy in itself which worries Francis, but the theological errors which underpin the purported 'reform of the reform'. This was made clear well before Francis' time when representatives of one fundamentalist organisation--Una Voce--were received by the Assistant Secretary of State, Archbishop Benelli, in October 1976. He told them that "those who wish to retain the old Mass have a different ecclesiology". 

In this column Loftus demonstrates his inability to distinguish the question of the 'reform of the reform' from the question of the continued use of the old, unreformed books: despite basing the article around remarks of Pope Francis which make the distinction very clearly.

A spiritual Resurrection?

The Consecration at the Easter Vigil, St Mary Moorfields, London

Mgr Loftus hasn't delighted his readers with his thoughts on the nature of the Resurrection since 2012 (8 July: ‘Christ was not physically present either during his appearances on earth after the Resurrection, or in the Eucharist.’), but this Easter he is back on his old form.

The Catholic Times, 3 April 2015:

The undoubted reality of the Presence of Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is not a physical presence, but a spiritual presence.

            The equally undoubted resurrection of our bodies will not be a copy of Lazarus being raised from the dead. Our bodies will not be re-animated, or come back to life with their physical properties. Physical bodies require a place to be displayed, but Heaven is not a place. … We ourselves will be raised from the dead, it is our bodies that will rise, this is the continuity. But rather than speaking of a ‘spiritual body’ we need to think of the spiritual reality of our body, because we will then be animated not by our soul but by the spirit of the Risen Christ.

Loftus and the Missal translation

I've put my readers through some tedious drivel in talking about Mgr Basil Loftus, so this post will keep to short quotations which, if they were not so scandalous, would be rather amusing. For in talking about the 2011 translation of the Ordinary Form Missal, Loftus leaves behind all restraint.

5 Sep 2010: ‘If you control the language, you control the people. That seems to the hidden agenda. The door is closing on people’s freedom to express themselves to God in prayer.’

31 July 2011: ‘…The need for mankind to express itself in the vernacular, recognised by Vatican II, will not be met if a stilted, outdated, pompous and artificial vocabulary inhibits and frustrates our more natural and spontaneous expression of the excitement with which we discover both nature and the supernatural.’

26 May 2013: ‘an unwanted and unwelcome, artificial and stilted, unprofessional and occasionally theologically inaccurate translation of the Mass'

Loftus and the authority of the Holy See

The Editor of the Catholic Times, Kevin Flaherty, tells us that Mgr Basil Loftus provides his readers with 'a loyal summary of 'counsel' coming from the Holy See, and in particular from the Holy Father.' 20 March 2015.

So it will be interesting to have a look at what Loftus has to say about one of the most closely-guarded prerogatives of the Holy See: the authority to regulatge the liturgy, part of the munus of the Holy Father himself, as we are reminded by the Instruction Universae Ecclesiae 8.

Do we read Loftus accepting with docility the rulings of the Holy See, through the offices of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei? Does he seek to understand the reasoning behind their decrees, urge everyone to obey them, and perhaps humbly petition for sensible changes in the future? Well, no.

Loftus and the teaching of the Church

Although vulgar abuse of named or otherwise clearly identifiable individuals takes up a lot of Mgr Basil Loftus' column space, and his endless screeds against the 2011 translation of the Ordinary Form Missal a lot more, never let it be said that he does not address serious theological topics, for he takes the time also to deny fundamental principles of Catholic teaching too. The Editor of the Catholic Times, Kevin Flaherty, made it clear last weekend that his post-bag has been filling up with complaints about Loftus' advocacy of Communion for Catholics in irregular unions, but this is a mere detail in Loftus' deviation from the teaching of the Church. He is just as happy to advocate giving Communion to those living in sin, or in homosexual unions, as I have several times noted on this blog: see here, and here.

Loftus' denial of the teaching of the Church on homosexuality has caused particular concern. Loftus even went so far as to attack his fellow Catholic Times columnist, Fr Marsden, in the paper's correspondence column, for his temerity for reiterating the teaching of the Church. In his letter, Loftus artlessly revealed that he does not believe that the Church's teaching on morals is ever infallible: at least, that seems to be the implication of this contorted passage.

‘When Fr Marsden (Credo, The Catholic Times, March 6) lumps together as instances of “dissent” from “the faith which is believed”, the denial of Christ’s divinity, the ordination of women, and the “extolling” of what he terms “sodomistic relationships” as an alternative to matrimony, he mixes apples with pears.

‘The divinity of Christ has been revealed by God, and calls for the assent of faith.

‘The other two instances are taught by the magisterium of the Church to be wrong.

Loftus and the bishops

In my last post, I wondered whether Mgr Basil Loftus deserves to be defened by Kevin Flaherty, the Editor of The Catholic Times, who wrote last weekend:

'Vatican Counsel' [the name of the column] aims to be just that - a loyal summary of 'counsel' coming from the Holy See, and in particular from the Holy Father.' 20 March 2015

I demonstrated that Loftus has nothing but hatred and contempt for the institutions of the Holy See, notably for the Congregation for Divine Worship, and for the curial Cardinals, including not only theological conservatives like Cardinal Burke ('judgemental zealot'), Cardinal Muller ('not fit for purpose') and Cardinal Ranjith ('Sri Lankan cappa magna fetishist and Tridentine-rite devotee'), but Cardinals of a quite different stripe, like Cardinal Bertone (the 'previous Cardinal Secretary of State is constructing his own “Trump Towers” right next door to the hostel where the Pope lives'). Although ideology is certainly important to Loftus, he is ready to spew his bile at anyone who comes to his attention, like some kind of loathsome toad.

And he does the same with our own bishops in the UK, with and under whom we are united with the Holy See. Here are some highlights.

Loftus and the Gestapo

Last weekend the Editor of the Catholic Times felt the need to include in the Letters page a little defence of Mgr Basil Loftus, at some length.

Some letters sent to The Catholic Times in recent times imply that the notion of exploring the possibility of divorced and remarried Catholics receiving Communion emanates from Mgr Basil Loftus. It does not, 'Vatican Counsel' [the name of the column] aims to be just that - a loyal summary of 'counsel' coming from the Holy See, and in particular from the Holy Father.' 20 March 2015

So just how 'loyally' does Loftus 'summarise' what comes from the Holy See? The Editor, Kevin Flaherty, doesn't seem to have noticed the content of Loftus' column in the very same edition, where the Congregation for Divine Worship's role in promulgating the 2011 translation of the Ordinary Form Missal is compared to the work of the Gestapo.

1998 ICEL: a twitching dead horse

The things which create a barrier to immediate, word-by-word comprehension are the same
things that create a sense of awe in the liturgy.

Fr Gerald O'Collins SJ, one of the translators of the 1998 translation of the Ordinary Form Missal which was rejected by the Holy See, is so enraged by the attempt to use language with an appropriate dignity in the 2011 translation approved by the Holy See, that he has written an open letter to the Bishops calling on them to use the 1998 version anyway. There is, of course, absolutely no chance of that happening, and the letter comes across as rather forlorn.

Never one to wait before jumping on such a bandwagon, Mgr Basil Loftus has this weekend weighed in, to explain that the 2011 translation was a conspiracy by traditionalists. Yes, really. (The Catholic Times, 20 March 2015.)

The present English translation was sired by a Roman Curia Divine Worship Congregation which in all but name was a Trojan Horse for the infiltration of the Tridentine-rite Mass into the wider Church. At that time you had more chance of finding a needle in a haystack than of identifying one of its senior officials who celebrated Mass in any other rite.