The ‘Filial Correction’, by 62 clergy and scholars, which has recently been launched detailing accusations of heresy against Pope Francis has already been dismissed by Francis’s supporters.

One described it as a ‘flea-bite to an elephant’, alluding to the fact that few names of international repute (and no members of the hierarchy) have signed the letter, launched at midnight yeaterday.

No matter.

The ‘Correctio’ is significant for two reasons: the first is that it is virtually unprecedented; the second that it is the only way remaining to express what is an increasing body of dissent in Europe’s only surviving Absolute Monarchy – bolstered as it is by an unthinking Papolatry, which is itself inimical to the Church’s well-being.

The Filial Correction and its signatories, along with a summary statement and press release, can be viewed at

Mason’s Arms


Jonathan Baker is a divorced and remarries bishop of the Church of England who renounced a senior position in Freemasonry in order to secure his elevation to the episcopate.

Readers of this blog will ask themselves how this accords with scripture and how, in any case, one can resign from a secret society.

Baker is, as well as his episcopal functions as Bishop of Fulham, parish priest of St Andrew’s Holborn in central London. The images here are of a fashion show which recently took place in his church. Charity might conclude that in allowing the show Bishop Baker had taken his eye off the ball, or leave of his senses.

Remembering that Baker was once Chairman of the traditionalist grouping Forward in Faith, readers will also want to ask themselves what is the significance, for Bishop Jonathan’s ministry, of the Masonic and demonic imagery and why it was permitted in his Church.

The images which follow can will seem to many little short of folly.

baker 1


baker 2




Fourth Reich


Fair is foul and foul is fair’, sing Macbeth’s witches.

But few inversions of values can have been as dramatic and significant as that recently agreed by the European Parliament. The nations of the West (and almost all societies elsewhere) have traditionally viewed abortion as a crime – the slaughter of the innocents. And they have universally affirmed the duty of mothers (and fathers) to guard the life of their child, to cherish and nurture it.

The opposite is true of the European Union.

In a recent enactment they have turned those moral principles on their head. Previously it was held that abortion was wrong because it was a form of violence against the unborn. The Union now maintains that to deny women the right to abortion is an act of violence against them.

[The European Union] ‘Strongly affirms that the denial of sexual and reproductive health and rights services, including safe and legal abortion, is a form of violence against women and girls; reiterates that women and girls must have control over their bodies and sexualities; calls on all the Member States to guarantee comprehensive sexuality education, ready access for women to family planning, and the full range of reproductive and sexual health services, including modern contraceptive methods and safe and legal abortion’

And this despite contradictory legislation in some of the countries of the twenty-seven.

Catholic Christians will ask themselves ‘What next?’, in a polity where opposing sin has been made a crime.




My initial reaction to Austen Ivereigh’s assertion that a cabal of converts is seeking to subvert Pope Francis’s programme was wonderment that anyone could be certain in this loquacious pontificate what that programme might be.

But I was wrong. A pattern is emerging and it is one of fragmentation. The Holy Father, it seems, is bent on what one might call the Balkanization of the Church.

In the certain knowledge that some national churches or individual bishops would not follow suit, Francis has given encouragement, in the aftermath of Amoris Laetitia, to those who intend to take a liberal (or as he would say ‘merciful’) line on the admission of divorced persons to Holy Communion.

Now he has extended the role of episcopal conferences in the preparation of local language translations of the liturgy.

The effect of such action, if it continues into other spheres, will be to reverse the policy of Benedict XVI, which was to deny any such role to episcopal conferences, and to affirm the primacy, historically and ontologically, of the Universal Church.

Those of us in the Ordinariates cannot but view this Balkanization (or Anglicanization) of the Catholic Church as a recipe for disintegration and ultimate schism and decline.

Current popular Papolatry does not mitigate but, paradoxically, assists this process.

Punch Up

Pope Francis

When Pope Francis emerged, during his recent pastoral visit to Colombia, with a black eye, the Press naturally assumed some domestic accident – or worse, an incident involving a clash between his security guards and organised crime. But not so.

This blog can exclusively reveal that the Colombian police attribute the assault to a single young man – a traditionalist Catholic priest said to be connected with a terrorist cell close to Cardinal Burke.

Closed circuit television pictures have been posted on the internet, but so far the assailant has evaded capture.

Said an eye-witness account, Dolores de Alimeira, who was standing by the Popemobile: ‘He just leapt forward with a loud cry of ‘Et cum spiritu tuo’, and gave the Pope an almighty punch.’

‘In a moment the young man had disappeared into the crowd. No one saw where he went – which is strange considering the fact that he was wearing a cotta with half a metre of Brussels lace, a feriola and a saturno.’



‘I say, Jeeves,’ said I, putting down a copy of the Church Times which I had inadvertently taken from the library table at Blandings, supposing (mistakenly as it turned out) that it might contain tips for the 11.30 at Wincanton. ‘What do you make of gay bishops?’

‘I have Sir, no hesitation in saying that such a person could not possibly exist.’

It is Jeeves’s usual, habit, I have noticed, to employ a touch of the ontologicals, especially when he is on a sticky wicket.

‘But come on, Jeeves’, I said, ‘it’s down here in black and white in this church paper thingy. The Bishop of Grantham, it says, swings entirely the other way. And what is more, he is shacked up with another pansy. Even the Archbishop of Canterbury knows all about it.’

Jeeves appeared to be unperturbed by this revelation.

‘I have it on good authority, Sir – in confidence from another gentleman’s gentleman, and so bound by the utmost discretion– that though the relationship is close and enduring, there has been no – ermm – well – hanky panky.’

‘I should hope not, Jeeves. But how in the world could the Archbishop of Canterbury know that? Does he move in the same circles as you?’

‘Oh, no Sir, most certainly not. I surmise, therefore, that it was merely a charitable assumption on his part.’

‘Charity my foot!’ I replied irascibly. ‘Either they’re at it or not.’

‘In other circumstances, I would agree, Sir; but these gentlemen, it appears, are in a relationship best described as “theological”.’

‘Poppycock, Jeeves!’ I replied, ‘theology my hat! Isn’t the Bible clear about these things ‘Thou shalt not…’, ‘Caesar’s wife…’ and all that.’ (I was certain of my ground, if a little shaky on the details.)

‘Alas no,’ said Jeeves with an air of effortless superiority. ‘Sir has obviously not grasped the purpose of modern theology, which (as I understand it) is to show that the Bible means the opposite of what it actually says.  It is called the science of hermeneutics.’

‘Homoneutics, did you say? Well I for one am having none of it!’

And with that crushing riposte, I determined to put a fiver on ‘Pride of Killarney’, at 10 to 1 in the  two-thirty.



Following the example of the Government’s ‘Turing’ Law’, whereby those convicted of sexual offences now removed from the statute book are automatically pardoned, it has been announced that the Church of England is to adopt a similar policy of pardon and rehabilitation.

At a special service in Westminster Abbey clergy who were dismissed or unfrocked for what was then termed ‘gross indecency’, and their relatives, will receive formal apologies from the Archbishops of Canterbury and York.

The Archbishops, in specially commissioned copes of sackcloth, will symbolically empty bowls of ashes on each’s heads.

The preacher (yet to be announced) is roumoured to be a woman bishop in a committed civil partnership.

The music chosen for this unique service will include two pieces by Benjamin Britten, including a little known motet ‘Who am I to judge?’ – in what may be its first performance in this country. It will end with a rendition, by Sir Elton John, of the song ‘I am what I am’, with its poignant allusion to Genesis 3.14.

Said an official spokesperson: ‘We hope that this solemn occasion will nevertheless be an event for families of all varieties.  There will be a reception afterwards in the Methodist Central Hall attended also by the President of Conference. Music will be provided by a multi-ethnic choir of transgendered schoolchildren from Church of England schools from across the country.