The Catholic Herald’s Online Archive is ready to go!

For your Just Too Cool file this week’s online digital edition of the full Catholic Herald (the UK’s best Catholic weekly) has a couple pages which show what their online searchable archive is like.

They have available online every issue of the paper back to the 1930’s!

In hope one of these days they will put together a promo-subscription for Fr. Z readers.  In the meantime, you can subscribe to digital Catholic Herald HERE (then scroll down… you’ll find it).

No waiting for the mail (to get it to you late).  Click and read.

It might be fun to follow lo these many decades after the fact the week by week doings of the Second Vatican Council as reported back then.

I like that ad in the corner:

And in this week’s issue there are letters to the editor about the new translation which mention the undersigned (they are referring back to another letter about the translation and the undersigned):

And His Hermeneuticalness, the great Fr. Finigan, as a Q&A column each week:

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Just Too Cool, The Campus Telephone Pole and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to The Catholic Herald’s Online Archive is ready to go!

  1. Maltese says:

    “The changes are here. Embrace them for what they are: liturgical fine-tuning, with texts so much more deeper in meaning and backed by scriptural (and not man-made) reference.”–Kevin Jones (from a letter to the Herald).

    What a bunch of nonsense! Contrariwise, one might quote the English writer Evelyn Waugh:

    The nature of the Mass [the Traditional Latin Mass] is so profoundly mysterious that the most acute and holy men are continually discovering further nuances of significance. It is not a peculiarity of the Roman Church that much which happens at the altar is in varying degrees obscure to most of the worshipers. It is in fact the mark of all the historic, apostolic Churches. I think it highly doubtful whether the average churchgoer either needs or desires to have complete intellectual, verbal comprehension of all that is said. He has come to worship.

  2. Papabile says:

    Here’s a moral quandry….

    Your friends used to be Protestant. At that time, through IVF, 7 embryos were created through IVF. They then had frozen them, after bringing 1 to term.

    They convert to Catholicism. Yet, now they feel compelled to bring the rest to term, even though the act of implanting in the uterus is objectively immoral.

    Obviously, this is not an easy question, and Dignitatis Personae only tangentially addresses the situation through the “embryo addition” section in part 19.

    Is this a matter of the internal forum?

  3. Raul says:

    Wait a minute. Why do you need a parent’s signature just to get info on a missal?

  4. Phil_NL says:

    @Raul:
    tot stop 6 year olds who think sending missal info to their Jehova neighbours is a nice addition to ring and run, perhaps?

  5. acardnal says:

    @Raul: In the USA a teenage girl can get an abortion without the knowledge of her parents let alone the signature of her parents! Of course, their signature is required to get an aspirin from the school nurse. Go figure.

  6. jkm210 says:

    Legally speaking, a person under the age of 18 cannot enter into a contract. This is why children under the age of 18 cannot have a checking account or a credit card unless it is backed by their parents. And if it is found that someone did enter a contract with a minor (provided there is no complication of the minor forging parental consent or something like that), the minor is not held responsible. So my guess is that, especially in a more conservative time period, they wanted the parents to be aware of the fact that a child was considering the purchase of something that would probably require a check. Or, I guess, since it was the UK, a cheque.

    The diocese I grew up in has been digitizing their newspaper archives, and they have done 1960-1965 so far. It is very interesting but also sad to read. I’m not a VII “denier” but you can see in the newspaper the way it was misunderstood even then, and the shooting down of people with legitimate concerns in the syndicated column “Question Box” by Msgr. Conway is disheartening to read.

  7. tominrichmond says:

    Ugh, how ’bout that treacle about the opening of the Council? No wonder things went off track so quickly if a serious Catholic paper could be so swept up in utopian delirium: “a new order of human relations,” “a multi racial Pentecost,” “the Church Dynamic.”

    What an interesting artifact, showing just how ridiculous the expectations were for VII.

  8. Ezra says:

    The Catholic Herald was, in the years of Vatican II and following, an aggressively liberal publication. While the archive sounds a fascinating historical resource, be sure to ready your eyeballs for rolls-a-plenty as you dig through those copies from the ’60s and ’70s.

    But hey – that the contemporary CH is such an excellent publication means there’s hope yet for the Tablet and National Catholic Reporter. I can see it now: the NCR of 2030 running gushing interviews with Cardinal Fellay, while over at the Tablet readers are encouraged to collect all twelve pull-out editions of “The Layman’s Guide to Devoutly Assisting at the Recently Revived Use of Salisbury“.

  9. John Nolan says:

    The CH probably reached its nadir under the editorship of Peter Stanford (the BBC’s Catholic pundit-of-choice) and it was turned round by William Oddie and his successors. When I first read Waugh’s ‘Men at Arms’ in the early 1970s I was a bit surprised to see Guy Crouchback taking ‘The Tablet’ but no doubt it wasn’t heretical in 1939 (or even in 1951 when the novel was written).

    Am I right in thinking that the NCR was officially condemned as heretical within a year of its first publication?

  10. anilwang says:

    Papabile, a while ago, I listened to a seminar where a Vatican ethicist discussed the issue of “IVF spare embryos” and if infertile couples could adopt an “IVF spare embryo”.

    His basic answer is that there is no good answer to this question other than avoiding IVF in the first place. Until the Vatican rules one way or another and as long as the embryos are kept alive and not treated inhumanely, the couple is free to decide based on personal convictions.

    Its disgusting that the Lambeth 1930 conference has ultimately lead to a whole industry with corrupt hooks into science and government devoted to slaughtering and suspending the lives (though embyos cryogenics) of our most vulnerable citizens and created ethical dilemmas that we should never have to deal with.