Quantcast
Channel: Scottish Catholic Observant
Viewing all 67 articles
Browse latest View live

Fr Clarence Gallagher (1929-2013)

$
0
0
Rettore Magnifico
Fr Clarence Gallagher SJ (1929-2013)





One Saturday morning in 1992, the 75th anniversary of the founding by Pope Benedict XV of the Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome (the Orientale), the Rector, Fr Clarence Gallagher SJ, took a phone call from Mgr Stanisław Dziwisz, personal secretary of Pope John Paul II. Did Fr Clarence have anything planned for that evening and, if not, would he care to join His Holiness for some supper? And, could he bring his vice-Rector with him?There could, of course, be but only one reply and that in the negative once and the affirmative twice. The vice-Rector, it should be noted, was the late Fr. John F Long SJ, an American Jesuit known as the “the grand old man of Catholic-Orthodox relations” (died aged 80 years on September 20, 2005; he retired from the Orientale in the same year as Fr Clarence stood down as Rector, 1995).

That evening over a memorable supper His Holiness explained that he was much troubled with the state of dialogue with the Orthodox Churches and thought that Fr Clarence might be able to help. Could he arrange to bring some of the Orientale’s experts to brief him? Fr Clarence later said: “I thought we would hear no more about it. I thought he had just got a bee in his bonnet and that he would soon forget about the whole thing.”

Two weeks later he got another phone call from Mgr Dziwisz: Could he bring his experts along on Tuesday morning at 11? This time only one affirmative was required!

In all Fr Clarence arranged eight seminars in this series for the Pope. They were all held on a Tuesday morning at 11 o’clock in the papal private library. After about two hours they would wind it up by paying a visit to the private chapel and then sit down to lunch. Fr Clarence would later remark that Pope John Paul II was a “splendid host. The conversation was always brilliant. He had a tremendous intellect, one of the best I have ever come across, along with Fr Kolvenbach (Peter Hans, SJ, Fr General, 1983-2008, and a predecessor of Fr Clarence as Rector of the Orientale, 1981-83). He had a remarkable memory, especially a wealth of stories about things that happened when he was a young priest, and a great sense of humour. And the food was always marvellous…”

Fr Clarence explained that a Tuesday was in theory the Pope’s day off. His Holiness told him: “I try to use some of it for reading, to catch up on my theology.” This latter point accompanied by a deprecatory broad grin.

And it was thus that Fr Clarence became to Blessed Pope John Paul II “rettore magnifico”. It also got him into trouble with the Grand Chancellor of the Orientale, His Eminence Achille Cardinal Silvestrini, Prefect of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches.

A wealthy widow, Mrs Anna Maria Gruenhut Bartoletti Aletti, had bequeathed one of the homes she had inherited from her late husband, Dr (possibly Count) Ezio Aletti, to the Society of Jesus. This was a late nineteenth-century liberty-style palazzo in via Paolina, just round the corner from the Basilica of Saint Mary Major (the other home was in Trieste). The good widow expressed a desire that it might become a centre of intercultural meeting and reflection. The Father General of the Jesuits thought to ask Fr Clarence if he could do anything appropriate with it. Fr Kolvenbach was not noted for asking stupid questions, or, for asking questions to which he did not already have a shrewd idea of the answer.

Fr Clarence recruited a young Jesuit, Fr Marko Rupnik SJ (a Slovenian and then about 37 years of age), who was both a theologian of some standing and, and more importantly, a brilliant artist in the Byzantine tradition of iconography and mosaics to be Director of what was to become the Centro Aletti. Its purpose was described most aptly by Blessed Pope John Paul II at its formal opening on Sunday, December 12, 1993:

(T)he Ezio Aletti Study and Research Centre… was recently founded as a part of the Pontifical Oriental Institute with the aim of creating privileged opportunities for meetings and exchanges on the subject of Christianity in East Europe. Its particular goal is to encourage research among the Orientales themselves on the meaning of faith following the collapse of the Marxist regimes, and with regard to the spread of the achievements and of the false myths of Western culture.”

Two-and-a half years earlier, on July 15, 1991, when its founding was first announced, Fr Kolvenbach had indicated that Centro Aletti was to be primarily aimed towards scholars and artists with a Christian perspective, whether that be Orthodox or Oriental-rite Catholic or Latin-rite Catholic, from Central and Eastern Europe with the purpose of creating an opportunity for them to meet and live and work for a time together with their Western European colleagues thereby preparing all for the future and the challenges that it would bring.

It was over the plans for the formal opening of Centro Aletti on that Sunday in December of 1993 that Fr Clarence was to seriously discomfit Cardinal Silvestrini. In the course of discussion on some routine matters, Fr Clarence happened to observe that everyone connected with Centro Aletti would be delighted to welcome Pope John Paul II at the formal opening. Cardinal Silvestrini observed that sadly they would all be disappointed as His Holiness never accepted invitations to that sort of thing on a Sunday. Fr Clarence then pointed out that he already had gladly accepted! Exit one seriously dischuffed Cardinal bearing a thunderous expression upon his countenance.

Rettore Magnifico had simply asked and his Pope couldn’t dream of refusing. Not the way it was supposed to be done at all, at all.

Over lunch after the formal opening, His Holiness dropped into the conversation that he had been reading a work by Sergei Bulgakov. This was directed towards Fr Marko who immediately replied “Oh, Holiness you have been reading…” And whatever it was, he had. Fr Clarence recalled that this gave rise to a lively discussion and that afterwards, as he was being escorted to his car, His Holiness said to him, and Fr Marko, that he would have to arrange another few seminars for him. It was as a direct result of this further close association between Fr Clarence and his experts and Blessed Pope John Paul II that Fr Marko was invited to oversee the transformation of the Capella Redemptoris Mater, the larger of the private papal chapels, on an Eastern Theological theme devised in cooperation with Fr, later Cardinal, Tomáš Špidlík SJ. This project was to be funded by the “handsome gift of money”, as Fr Clarence put it, that the His Holiness had received from the Cardinals on, if memory serves, the Golden Jubilee of his priesthood.

The current Rector of the Orientale, Fr James McCann SJ, has kindly informed that Fr Edward Farrugia SJ, a Maltese Jesuit who has been Professor of Dogmatic Theology and Oriental Patrology at the Orientale since 1981, who took part in these seminars, recalls that apart from himself, Frs Long, Rupnik and Špidlík, other members of Fr Clarence’s team of experts includedFr. Richard Cemus SJ (a Czech scholar of Eastern spirituality who had just returned from working in the Apostolic Delegation — this was before it became a Nunciature — in post-Soviet Moscow), and Michelina Tenace (a religious sister affiliated with Centro Aletti and a Professor of the Pontifical Gregorian University).

Clarence Gallagher was born in Detroit on November 17, 1929, second son of Charles Gallagher, a painter and decorator, and his wife Mary (McNally). Clarence’s older brother, John, was also born in Detroit. Sometime after the end of the First World War the McNally family had immigrated to Detroit from Bellshill, Lanarkshire. So, too, did Charles Gallagher and his sister, Nan, from the adjoining village of Mossend. Mary McNally and Nan Gallagher were friends, both families having been parishioners of Holy Family, Mossend, and the girls having been at the parish school together. Soon they became sisters-in-law. When the USA became convulsed with the Great Depression, Charles and Mary, with their sons John and Clarence, returned to Mossend about three years after Clarence’s birth. A daughter, Mary, and a brother Gerald were added to the household.

Clarence was educated a Holy Family Primary School and Our Lady’s High School, Motherwell (which produced more Catholic priests than any other school in the UK, and probably Ireland, including Thomas Joseph Cardinal Winning). However, he completed his Secondary Education at St Mary’s College, Blairs, Aberdeen. From there he went to the Scots College, Rome (in 1948, The Motherwell Times reported that the family of Cardinal Winning met him at the Scots College when they were in Rome for His Eminence's priestly ordination). However, after the three year course in Philosophy at the Pontifical Gregorian University (the Greg), in 1950, aged 21 years, he left and joined the Society of Jesus, the Jesuits, entering the Novitiate at Harlaxton, Lincolnshire (the Jesuits had bought the Manor three years earlier, in 1948). At his funeral, in the course of an oration his friend, Fr Gerry J Hughes SJ, noted that the decisive motive for this change of direction was that “he admired the combination of spirituality and learning in the Jesuits he met in Rome.”

Over the next thirteen years he undertook further study at London (Teacher Training), Oxford (Campion Hall, Classics and Philosophy), Heythrop (Theology). This period also included two years teaching at the former Jesuit school St Michael’s College, Leeds. Priestly ordination at Oxford in 1963 was followed by Tertianship, the final period of Jesuit training which includes a thirty day silent retreat based upon the Spiritual Exercises of St Ignatius Loyola, at St Beuno’s (1964/5).

Fr Hughes observed that it was after having finished at St Beuno’s that Fr Clarence was “perhaps rather to his surprise” asked to go to Rome to study Canon Law. This was to end, if not in tears, then certainly in serious disappointment. Fr Hughes explained that another student elsewhere in Italy completed his doctoral thesis on the very topic that Fr Clarence had chosen and no-one had thought to check. Clarence’s time and effort had been wasted. And so in 1969 he returned to England. Eventually he was appointed Assistant for Formation while undertaking teaching duties in Canon Law and Ecclesiology at the new Heythrop in London.

In 1975, Fr Clarence returned to Rome to complete his doctorate and then to teach for a brief time at the Greg. In 1979, much to his surprise, he was nominated to fill the post of Socius, personal assistant, to the Father Provincial, Fr Maher. He seems to have been, to put it mildly, a difficult man to keep up with but Fr Hughes observed that “it is a tribute to Clarence’s selflessness as well as his administrative tact that he coped with an almost impossible job so successfully.”

1981 saw Fr Clarence return to his native West of Scotland as both Parish Priest of St Aloysius, Garnethill, and Rector of St Aloysius College. The next four or five years was a time of rapid development of the facilities of the College. It also saw the launch of the post-Vatican II Code of Canon Law 1983. Clarence during this time served as a judge of the Scottish National (Marriage) Tribunal. At the invitation of the Scottish Bishops’ Conference, he toured the country lecturing to clergy, religious and laity on the new Code.

And then in 1985 the hand of God came to rest most kindly upon Fr Clarence’s shoulder. He was appointed lecturer in Oriental Canon Law at the Orientale, the Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome. This is located on the Piazza di Santa Maria Maggiore, a walk of no more than a minute or two from Stazione Termini. Over the next twelve years Fr Clarence was to at last feel that he had truly found his niche in the Society and the Church. Despite the fact that his appointment had originally much perplexed him. Asked what he knew about the Oriental Canon Law upon his appointment, he paused, thought, rubbed his chin and said ruefully something along the lines of “very little, really” (although in fact in very minor Scots vernacular, which nonetheless was a great surprise!).

He became in turn Professor and then Dean of the Faculty of Law by appointment of the Father General, Fr Kolvenbach, and then finally (but not quite) Rector by appointment of Pope John Paul II. During this time he would provide expert advice to the committee for the redaction of the new Code of Canon Law for the Eastern Rite Churches; advise the Vatican’s team of prelates involved in the highly fruitful negotiations with the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church on the vexed question of Inter-Church Marriages; act as a judge of the tribunal of the Diocese of Rome; and, conduct an Apostolic Visitation of the Church in India. Fr Hughes reflected that he “knew the Pope well, (and) dealt with Cardinals and Patriarchs as one to the manner born.”

He gained much personal satisfaction in the supervision of doctoral students. Notable amongst these were James Michael Cardinal Harvey, formerly Prefect of the Papal Household but now Archpriest of the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside-the-Walls (but this was probably during his earlier spell at the Greg), and Mgr Gerard McGhee, the Scottish judge of the Sacred Roman Rota.

Moreover, Archbishop Cyril Vasil’, Secretary of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches, was a student under Fr Clarence. Ordained priest in his native Slovakia in 1987 and having obtained a degree in Theology from the University of Bratislava, he went to Rome and the Orientale. He earned a license in canon law (JCL) in 1989 and a doctorate (JCD) in 1994. Between times, on October 15, 1990, he entered the Society of Jesus, being solemnly professed in 2001. He would later follow in Fr Clarence’s footsteps as Professor and Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law of the Orientale before himself being appointed Rector. It seems highly unlikely that he would not have discussed his desire to join the Jesuits with Fr Clarence, the man who was successively his Professor, Dean and Rector. No doubt His Excellency, again like Fr Clarence “admired the combination of spirituality and learning in the Jesuits he met in Rome.”

Stepping down as Rector in 1995 was not quite the end of Fr Clarence’s work at the Orientale. He remained in Rome for about another two years before returning once more to Oxford and to Campion Hall. Far from enjoying a much deserved retirement, together with Fr Robert Ombres OP of nearby Blackfriars, he helped establish at Heythrop College, London University, the first undergraduate degree course in Catholic Canon Law in the UK since the Reformation. Typically, he also acceded to Fr Hughes’s request that he assume the task of being Home Bursar.

The photograph below was taken  by Fr Antoni Üçerler SJ,  at “old Heythrop” sometime during this period. Fr Antoni was a colleague of Fr Clarence at Campion Hall and is Associate Professor of History and East Asian Languages and Culture at Georgetown University.





In 1999 (17-21 May), Fr Clarence presented a paper at the Annual Conference of the Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland held at the Dean Park Hotel, Renfrew near Glasgow in his (almost) native Scotland. His topic was “Diversity in Unity: Rome and Constantinople in the Ninth Century”. He was preceded at the lectern by Mgr Raymond Leo Burke, then Bishop of La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA, now Cardinal Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura. His Eminence’s topic would be even more topical today: “Administrative Justice in the Suppression of a Parish”.


He took part in a highly successful ecumenical delegation to Bulgaria ahead of Blessed Pope John Paul II's visit in May 2002. That year also saw the publication of his magnus opus Church Law and Church Discipline in Rome and Byzantium: A Comparative Study (University of Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Monographs, Volume 8).

A fitting tribute to Fr Clarence would be that paid to another great Scottish jurist of Holy Mother Church, William Theodore Cardinal Heard, whose final appointment in the Roman Curia was as Dean of the Sacred Roman Rota (1958-59) before being raised to the cardinalatial dignity in that latter year by Good Pope John. For the panegyric delivered at His Eminence’s Month’s Mind Requiem Mass held at his titular church, San Teodoro al Palatino, on October 16, 1973, Mgr, later Cardinal, Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, then Rector of the Venerable English College, where Cardinal Heard had resided for many years, chose as his text from the Book of Wisdom:

I, therefore, determined to take Wisdom to share my life, knowing that she would be my counsellor in prosperity, my comforter in cares and sorrow; I shall be reckoned shrewd when I sit in judgement, in presence of the great I shall be admired. By means of her, immortality shall be mine; I shall leave an everlasting memory to my successors. When I go home I shall take my ease with her, for nothing is bitter in her company, when life is shared with her, there is no pain ― gladness only and joy. (Book of Wisdom, chapter 8.)

Had the ecclesiastical authorities here in Scotland, the Apostolic Pro-Nuncio in London (Archbishop Bruno Heim), and the Congregation for Bishops in Rome in 1985 not decided, contrary to the expectations of many, that after all they couldn’t appoint a Jesuit as Archbishop and Metropolitan of St Andrews and Edinburgh, then one cannot but think that we, together with Fr Clarence, would all be in a far, far better place today!

Without presumption, recall the words of St Matthew (according to King James): “His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.”

Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy

$
0
0

The Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy and the Roman Curia

The Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy (usually referred to in Rome simply as the “academia”) is housed in the Palazzo Severoli located on the Piazza della Minerva, just behind the Pantheon. Founded in April 1701 by Abbot Pietro Garagni during the reign of Pope Clement XI, the academia is dedicated to training priests selected from all over the Catholic world — nowadays, but originally from the ranks of the “nobles” within the Papal states and soon its closest allies — to serve in the diplomatic corps and the Secretariat of State of the Holy See.

Archbishop Celestinio Migliore, currently Apostolic Nuncio to Poland, was Undersecretary for Relations with StatesDecember 16, 1995 – 30 October 30, 2002. On that latter date he was appointed Permanent Observer at the UN, New York (where he was assisted for a couple of years by Msgr Leo Cushley).  As Under-Secretary, His Excellency served ex-officio as Professor of Ecclesiastical Diplomacy at the Pontifical Lateran University and had responsibility for delivering the course on papal diplomacy for the students of the academia.

He has described the curriculum thus: “The academic curriculum consists of two years of specialized studies: ecclesiastical diplomacy, international law, monographs on international organizations and on techniques of negotiations; the history of ecclesiastical diplomacy, diplomatic styles, courses on great modern cultural and theological strains; and economic and social questions.

“At the same time, students take courses in information technology and languages. Each student, at the end of the curriculum, has to possess a working knowledge of at least two languages in addition to his mother tongue. The major languages studied are: English, French, Spanish, and German, and, increasingly, Arabic and the languages of Eastern Europe and Asia.” (‘Foreign’ students must already be totally fluent in Italian before selection.)

Each year roughly between eight and twelve diocesan priests from around the world are recruited to the academia; sometimes fewer and sometimes more, but never by much. Ten years ago, the Class of 2002 had 14 students. The Class of 1986, which included our very own Msgr Peter Magee PhB STL JCD (a priest of the Diocese of Galloway and now President of the National Tribunal) there were 5.  Ultimately, the hope would be that the brightest and the best, and NOT the most ambitious, alumni of the academia will in time be appointed as Apostolic Nuncios with the ecclesiastical rank of an archbishop. But obviously not all will, or, indeed, could.

Moreover, even if an alumnus reaches the giddy heights of an Apostolic Nunciature that is not necessarily as far as he will go in service of the Holy See.

It has frequently been remarked upon in the media that the present Cardinal Secretary of State, His Eminence Tarcisio Cardinal Bertone, prior to his appointment had no background in Vatican diplomacy. That being the case, it is hardly surprising to discover that he is not an alumnus of the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy, the academia.

Of the academia alumni occupying senior positions within the Roman Curia, and those institutions associated with service to the Holy Father, pride of place must, of course, be given to Cardinal Bertone’s immediate predecessor His Eminence Angelo Cardinal Sodano, Dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals and Cardinal Secretary of State Emeritus.
There are currently (Tuesday, Jan 24) another 15 cardinals in curia who are alumni of the academia. Five are serving heads of dicasteries and 10 are Emeriti. However, it should be noted that four of these ten are still cardinal electors.
The dicasteries of the Roman Curia

SECRETARIAT OF STATE

Cardinal Angelo Sodano (1959/1325); Secretary of State Emeritus and Dean of the Sacred College.

First Section
Archbishop Giovanni Angelo Becciu ( Class of 1980/Enrolment number 1533)(d.o.b. IF cardinal elector: June 2, 1948); Substitute for General Affairs (sostituto),(appointed: May 10, 2011)

Msgr Peter Brian Wells (1996/1688; American); Assessor for General Affairs (assessore)(July 16, 2009);

Archbishop Luciano Suriani (1986/1594)(Jan 11, 1957);Delegate for Pontifical Representations (Sep 24, 2009)

Msgr. Fortunatus Nwachukwu (1992/1646; Nigerian); Head of Protocol (Sep 4, 2007)

Second Section
Archbishop Dominique François Joseph Mamberti (1982/1652, French, Moroccan born)(March 7, 1952); Secretary for the Relations with States (Sep 15, 2006)

Msgr. Ettore Balestrero (1996/162); Undersecretary for the Relations with States (Aug 17, 2009)

CONGREGATIONS

Congregation for the Oriental Churches:

Leonardo Cardinal Sandri (1971/1446)(Nov 18, 1943, Argentinean, ethnic Italian); Prefect (Jun 9, 2007); former sostituto (Sep 16, 2000-Jun 9, 2007)

Achille Cardinal Silvestrini (1952/1270); Prefect Emeritus; former Secretary for the relations with States (May 4, 1979-Mar 1, 1986) [Cardinal Silvestrini’s successor as Secretary for the Relations with States was Cardinal Sodano]


Congregation for Bishops:

Archbishop Lorenzo Baldisseri (1971/1437)(Sep29, 1940); Secretary (Jan 11, 2012)

Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples:

Archbishop/Cardinal-elect Fernando Filoni (1979/1528) (Apr 15, 1946); Prefect (May 10, 2011); former sostituto (Jun 9, 2007-May 10, 2011)

Ivan Cardinal Dias (1962/1346) (April 14, 1936); Prefect Emeritus

TRIBUNALS

Apostolic Penitentiary:

Archbishop/Cardinal-elect Manuel Monteiro de Castro (1965/1377, Portuguese)(Mar 29, 1938); Major Penitentiary (Jan 5, 2012)

Fortunato Cardinal Baldelli (1964/1360)(Aug 6, 1935); Major Penitentiary Emeritus
Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura


PONTIFICAL COUNCILS

Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity:

Edward Idris Cardinal Cassidy (1953/1280); President Emeritus

Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace:

RenatoCardinal Raffaele Martino (1960/ 1334) (Nov 23, 1932); President Emeritus

Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People

Archbishop/Cardinal-elect Antonio Mari Vegliὸ (1966/1988) (Feb 3, 1938); President (Feb 28, 2009)
Cardinal Giovanni Cheli (1950/1257); President Emeritus

Archbishop Agostino Marchetto (1964/1370); Secretary Emeritus

Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue

Jean-Louis Pierre Cardinal Tauran  (1973/1472)(Apr 5, 1943); President (Jun 25, 2007)

Archbishop Pier Luigi Celata (1965/1375); Secretary (Nov 14, 2002) (Msgr Celata will submit his resignation on January 23 upon attaining his 75th birthday.)

Pontifical Council for Social Communications

Archbishop Claudio Maria Celli (1966/1383); President (Jun 27, 2007); former Undersecretary for the Relations with States (1990-Dec 16, 1995)

OFFICES

Apostolic Chamber

Cardinal Eduardo Martínez Somalo (1954/1287); Chamberlain (Camerlengo) Emeritus

Prefecture for the Economic Affairs of the Holy See

Cardinal Sergio Sebastiano (1958/1318); Prefect Emeritus

Prefecture of the Papal Household

Archbishop James Michael Harvey (1976/1500); Prefect (Feb 7, 1998)

Administration of the Patrimony of the Holy See

Cardinal Lorenzo Antonetti (1949/not given); President Emeritus

Cardinal Agostino Cacciavillan (1957/1311); President Emeritus

Synod of Bishops

Archbishop Nikola Eterović (1977/1507); Secretary General (Feb 11, 2004)

Governatorate of Vatican City State

Archbishop/Cardinal-elect Giuseppe Bertello (1967/1390)(Oct 1, 1942); President (Oct 1, 2011; appointed on his 69th birthday)

Cardinal Giovanni Lajolo (1968/1403)(Jan 3, 1935); President Emeritus; former Secretary for the Relations with States (Oct 7, 2003-Sep 15, 2006)

Major Basilicas
Archbishop/Cardinal-elect Santos Abril y Castelló and Archbishop Pier Luigi Celata (1965(1963/1537)(Sep 21, 1935); Archpriest of the Basilica of St Mary Major (Nov 21, 2011)

Some Scottish Notes

The Prefect of the Papal Household, Archbishop Michael Harvey gained his Doctorate in Canon Law under the supervision of Fr Clarence Gallagher SJ, Rector Emeritus of the Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome, and a native of Mossend, Bellshill (Holy Family Parish and School, and Our Lady's High School, Motherwell, my own alma mater).

Archbishop Luciano Suriani was an academia classmate of Msgr Peter Magee, President of the Scottish National Tribunal, and my hope for the succession in Glasgow (Class of 1986) .


Cardinal-elect Manuel Monteiro de Castro and Archbishop Pier Luigi Celata
were academia classmates of Msgr Basil Loftus, retired priest of the Diocese of Leeds an now a contributor to The Scottish Catholic Observer (SCO).

Notes

(1) His Eminence Paolo Cardinal Sardi, Vice-Chamberlain Emeritus of the Apostolic Chamber, was appointed an official of the Secretariat of State on December 10, 1996, at the same time being accorded the archiepiscopal dignity. However, I can find no listing for him as an alumnus of the academia. Salvador Miranda notes of his education: “he entered the Major Seminary in Torino; from October 1954, he studied theology and philosophy at the Pontificial Gregorian University in Rome and obtained a licentiate in theology in 1958; later, he studied canon law at the same university and obtained a doctorate in this discipline in 1963; then, he studied jurisprudence at Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore in Milan.”

No mention of the academia. He then describes his priesthood thus: “Ordained, June 29, 1958. From 1963 he taught moral theology at the Theological Faculty of the diocese of Acqui; and later he taught the same discipline at the Theological Faculty in Turin until 1976, when he was called to the Vatican to work in the Secretariat of State. On July 30, 1978, he was named chaplain of His Holiness. On December 24, 1987, he was named prelate of honour of His Holiness. In 1992, he was appointed vice assessor of the Secretariat of State; and in 1997, he was appointed assessor.”

No mention of a diplomatic career until 1976 and his call to the Vatican.

(2) The papal almoner, Archbishop Félix del Blanco Prieto, is a former diplomat. On May 31, 1991 he was nominated Apostolic Pro-Nuncio to São Tomé and Príncipe and Apostolic Delegate to Angola and was ordained Bishop on July 6 following, being provided to the titular archdiocese of Vannida; in May 1996 he was transferred as Nuncio to Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea was added at the end of the following month; in June 2003 he was transferred to Malta and Libya. On July 28, 2007 he was recalled to Rome and given his present assignment. However, he is not listed as an alumnus of the PEA.

In 2006 30 Days (no. 6/7) observed that all the nuncios at that time (there were 102, some covering more than one country) were drawn from the secular clergy except three: the Scalabrinian Silvano Tomasi (UN Geneva), the American Verbite Michael A. Blume (Benin) and the English White Father Michael L. Fitzgerald (Egypt). 30 Days then went on to say that apart from these 3 religious, another 7 nuncios were “also exceptional”. And numbered among them was “the Spaniard Felix del Blanco Prieto (Malta)”. I presume that this means he was not prepared for a diplomatic career at the academia.





Fr Clarence Gallagher: Obituary

$
0
0
This is the original text of the obituary I submitted to The (Glasgow) Herald and which was published (slightly, but quite correctly edited by them ) on Friday, June 14. There were several reasons for the delay in my submitting it to them and for this I apologise to Father's family and friends. For those who have access to neither the printed nor the on-line (if there be one) version in The Herald, I should point out that they used the photograph of Fr Clarence in the grounds of the old Heythrop College (see previous post).


Obituary: Fr Clarence Gallagher SJ
Former Parish Priest, St Aloysius, Garnethill, Glasgow (1981-85)
Former Rector, St Aloysius College, Garnethill, Glasgow (1981-85)
Former Rector, Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome (1990-95)
Founder, Centro Aletti, Rome (begun 1991; formally opened 1993)
Born: November 17, 1929
Died: May 5, 2013

Fr Clarence Gallagher SJ, who has died aged 83, was widely regarded as the favourite to succeed Gordon Joseph Cardinal Gray as Archbishop and Metropolitan of St Andrews and Edinburgh in 1985 when His Eminence retired. The Eastern Coast vineyard of the Lord’s loss was to be the Eastern-rite study within the Western-rite Catholic Church’s gain. Ultimately, it was also to prove the Catholic Church in Scotland’s loss too. And how.

For four years, Fr Clarence had, unusually, been both Parish Priest at Garnethill and Rector of the College. He had also served as a judge on the Scottish National (Marriage) Tribunal (founded in 1970 under Fr, later Cardinal, Tom Winning). In 1983, when the new, post-Vatican II Code of Canon Law was promulgated on January 25, he was asked by the hierarchy to tour the country to explain it to priests, religious and laity before its coming into effect at the beginning of Advent, on Sunday, November 27. Fr Clarence thus became much better known to a far wider range of the Catholic community throughout Scotland than he, and the hierarchy, and his bosses both in London and Rome, might have expected. He impressed everybody as a brilliant expositor of this driest of subjects and as an immensely intelligent but likeable and humble man. And as a good priest.

Born on Sunday, November 17, 1927, in Detroit, Michigan, nineteen days after the Wall Street Crash on Black Tuesday, October 29, when Clarence was three years old his parents, Charles, a painter and decorator, and Mary (nee McNally), confronted with the tragic realities of the Great Depression returned with Clarence and their older son, John, to Scotland and to Charles’s home village of Mossend (the McNally’s came from the adjacent Bellshill). A sister, Mary, and another brother, Gerald, were born after their return.

Clarence attended Holy Family Primary School, Mossend, and then Our Lady’s High School, Motherwell. Our Lady’s, up until the imposition of Comprehensive Education, produced more Catholic priests than any other school in Great Britain, including Cardinal Winning. Imbued with a vocation to the priesthood, Clarence left Our Lady’s and completed his secondary education at St Mary’s College, Blairs, Aberdeen. In 1947, equipped with six excellent Highers including English, Maths, Latin and Greek, he enrolled in the Pontifical Scots College, Rome, as a student for the Archdiocese of Glasgow.

By the time he started his second year of Philosophy studies at the Pontifical Gregorian University, the Greg, the Diocese of Motherwell had come into being. However, Clarence did not go on to be ordained for his new home diocese. Instead, on completing the Philosophy course in 1950 he left the Scots College and entered the Jesuit Novitiate at Harlaxton, Lincolnshire. His friend, Fr Gerry J Hughes SJ — not the Fr Hughes who was Catholic Chaplain at Glasgow University in the late 60s and early 70s — noted that “he admired the combination of spirituality and learning in the Jesuits he met in Rome.”

Further studies at Oxford (Campion Hall, Classics and Philosophy), London (Teacher Training) and Heythrop (Theology) followed and he taught for two years at St Michael’s College, Leeds. Priestly ordination at the hands of Archbishop Francis Joseph Grimshaw, Birmingham, in the chapel at the old Heythrop College, Oxford, on the Feast of St Ignatius Loyola, July 31, 1963, was followed by Tertianship, the final period of Jesuit training which includes a thirty day silent retreat based upon the Spiritual Exercises of St Ignatius, at St Beuno’s, North Wales (1964/5).

He then returned to Rome to study Canon Law at the Greg. The Licentiate was obtained without difficulty but his doctoral research was to end, if not in tears, then certainly in serious disappointment. Before he could complete and submit his thesis, another student in a Northern Italian institution completed his doctoral thesis on the very same topic that he had chosen. His supervisor had not thought to check. Clarence’s time and effort had been wasted.

Dejected and angry, in 1969 he returned to England where he served as Assistant for Formation and taught Canon Law and Ecclesiology at the new Heythrop College in London. In 1975, he was persuaded to return to Rome to complete his doctorate. During a brief spell teaching there, he supervised the doctoral thesis of James Michael Harvey, now Cardinal Archpriest of St Paul’s-Outside-the-Walls, the former Prefect of the Papal Household.

Asked in 1979 to serve in London as Socius, personal assistant to Fr Maher SJ, the Father Provincial in the UK, he hesitated. However, Father Pedro Arrupe SJ, Father General of the Jesuits, personally intervened to persuade Fr Clarence to accept this appointment saying that “it was for the greater good” rather than Clarence being just “yet another part-time canonist in Rome.” Later, Fr Arrupe explicitly spoke in the most laudatory terms of the way in which Clarence displayed Ignatian discernment in this whole question saying that he “was truly an obedient man.”

His reward for undertaking this onerous job — Fr Hughes observed: “(I)t is a tribute to Clarence’s selflessness as well as to his administrative tact that he coped with an almost impossible job so successfully” — came two years later in 1981 when he was asked to return to his native West of Scotland, to Garnethill, at a time of great development at the College.

At the beginning of 1985 it was already known that Cardinal Gray did not wish to carry on after August 10, the date upon which he would reach the age limit of 75 stipulated under canon law. There would have been absolutely no question of Blessed Pope John Paul II asking His Eminence to soldier on regardless. In the event, his resignation was accepted just over two months early, on May 30, only weeks before the Apostolic Pro-Nuncio, Archbishop Bruno Heim, was to retire. To the dismay of many, for a reason or reasons unknown, Keith Patrick O’Brien, Rector of St Mary’s College, Blairs, Aberdeen, Scotland’s national Junior Seminary, was preferred to Fr Clarence. All that can be said is that clearly this decision was not based upon an honest appraisal of either their respective intellects or characters, priestly or otherwise.

But even as this decision was being botched in the Vatican, nearby in the Jesuit Curia on the Borgo Santo Spirito, Fr Peter Hans Kolvenbach SJ, who had eventually replaced Fr Arrupe as Father General, had to fill a vacancy in the Canon Law Faculty of the Pontifical Oriental Institute on the Piazza Santa Maria Maggiore. He chose Fr Clarence. He was to become in turn Lecturer, Professor and then Dean of the Faculty of Law and then finally (but not quite) by papal appointment Rector (1990-95).

During his thirteen years at the Orientale, he would provide expert advice to the committee for the redaction of the new Code of Canon Law for the Eastern Rite Churches (promulgated 1990); advise the Vatican during the highly fruitful negotiations with the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church (initially on the vexed question of Inter-Church Marriages); conduct an Apostolic Visitation of the Church in India; and, conduct two sets of seminars for Pope John Paul II. He and the Pope became such good friends that the Pope always referred to him jocularly as “rettore magnifico”.

In 1991, Fr Clarence became the only Scotsman to found an educational institute in Rome. Two years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the founding of the Centro Aletti was announced. This was to be primarily aimed towards scholars and artists with a Christian perspective, whether that be Orthodox, or Oriental-rite Catholic, or Latin-rite Catholic, from Central and Eastern Europe with the purpose of creating an opportunity for them to meet and live and work for a time together with their Western European colleagues thereby preparing all for the future and the challenges that it would bring. Through Clarence’s personal relationship with Pope John Paul II, the atelier of the Director of the Centro Aletti, Fr Marko Rupnik, an excellent theologian but a better artist in the Byzantine tradition, was invited to do the artwork in the larger private papal chapel, the Redemptoris Mater.

Fr Clarence stepped down as Rector in 1995 and stayed on as a Professor for about a further two years before returning to Campion Hall, Oxford. Far from enjoying a much deserved retirement, together with Fr Robert Ombres OP of nearby Blackfriars, he helped establish at Heythrop College, by then part of London University, the first undergraduate degree course in Catholic Canon Law in the UK since the Reformation.

In recent years Fr Clarence, by now in indifferent health, had lived in retirement at the Jesuit retirement home at Boscombe, Bournemouth. He died there on May 5 and is survived by his sister, Dr Mary, and his brother Gerald. 

Bl. Alojzije Cardinal Stepinac

$
0
0
Thanks to the kindness of a friend, I have been able to retrieve many notes locked in old floppy disks. I shall publish some of them as I manage to render them into a readable form. I begin with that much abused man, Cardinal Stepinac.



In “Disputed Barricade: The Life and Times of Josip Broz-Tito, Marshal of Yugoslavia” (Johnathan Cape, 1957), Sir Fitzroy Maclean described Ante Pavelić’s return to Croatia “in the baggage train of the invading German armies” and goes on to note:

 “Pavelić’s henchman, Colonel Kvaternik, had publicly proclaimed Croatia’s independence amid scenes of genuine enthusiasm some hours before the first German troops actually entered Zagreb. In particular the change had been welcomed by many of the Catholic clergy, whose attitude had always reflected the Vatican’s dislike of Belgrade and who now looked forward to enjoying a privileged position in a Catholic country, freed for ever from the influence of their hated Orthodox rivals… Among the first to pay his respects to the Poglavnik (or leader, that is Pavelić HMcL) was Monsignor Stepinac, the Catholic Archbishop of Zagreb and Metropolitan of Croatia. In a Circular [sic, should be Pastoral HMcL] Letter of April 26th the Archbishop formally called upon the clergy to render loyal service to their new rulers. ‘These are events’ he wrote, ‘which fulfil the long dreamed of and desired ideal of our people… respond readily to my call to join in the noble task of working for the safety and well-being of the Independent State of Croatia.’” [p124]

This, of course, was before the nature of the Pavelić regime had been revealed in all its vile barbarity. And it was barbarous. Maclean goes on to tell us:

“The Ustaše vied to outdo each other, boasting of the numbers of their victims and of their own particular methods of dispatching them. The aged Orthodox Bishop of Plaški was garrotted by his assassins. Bishop Platon of Banjaluka was prodded to death in a pond. Some Ustaše collected the eyes of the Serbs they had killed, sending them, when they had enough, to the Poglavnik for his inspection or proudly displaying them and other human organs in the cafes of Zagreb. Even their German and Italian allies were dismayed at their excesses.
Pavelić, who saw Croatia once again in its historic role of Antemurale Christianitatis and himself as the defender of Western civilization in the struggle against Eastern barbarism, attached considerable importance to obtaining the official and open support of the Catholic Church for his policy of racial and religious Gleichschaltung. But in this he does not seem to have been as successful as he had hoped. The rank and file of the Catholic clergy in Croatia were, he confided to Ciano in December 1941, ‘very favorable’ to his regime; the higher ecclesiastical authorities considerably less so ‘indeed some of the Bishops were… definitely hostile.” [p162]

And among those who were by that time "definitely hostile" to the Government of the Independent State of Croatia was Archbishop Aloysius Stepinac. Maclean writes:

“…the Metropolitan, Archbishop Stepinac, had, in a Pastoral Letter issued in April 1941, welcomed the Independent State of Croatia and called upon the clergy to serve it loyally. But, as time went on, his initial enthusiasm seems to have given way to a sense of serious misgiving. No-one was more anxious than he to see the Orthodox population of Croatia converted to Catholicism and the last traces of Byzantium removed from Croat soil. ‘The Schismatics’, he had written some months earlier, ‘the curse of Europe — almost worse than Protestants…’ But the means by which the new regime was seeking to achieve these ends could scarcely meet with his approval.” [p162]

 And what were these methods? Maclean makes it abundantly clear:

“The Ustaše’s favourite method of religious unification was, as we have seen, the wholesale massacre of the Orthodox population. But in their more merciful moments, they would sometimes offer their victims immediate conversion to Catholicism as an alternative to annihilation. A priest would be produced and, while armed Ustaše looked on, whole villages would be received into the Church simultaneously. Soon, throughout the country, Catholic priests were besieged by crowds of panic-stricken men, women and children, clamouring for admission to the Church of Rome, in the hope that they might thus succeed in saving their lives.

This presented Archbishop Stepinac with a decidedly awkward problem. Canon law expressly forbade the admission to the Church of anyone who had not been duly instructed in its doctrines, or whose motives for wishing to enter it seemed dictated by self-interest, or were otherwise open to suspicion. The conditions were quite clearly not being fulfilled. What is more, the officiating priests were in many cases operating without proper authority from their ecclesiastical superiors. Taking a long view (and the Church has always taken a long view), there was a serious risk that what was happening might do the Church more harm than good, a risk that its reputation might suffer, a risk that under changed circumstances (and circumstances might always change) the mass conversions might be followed by mass backslidings. These and other dangers were all too evident from the reports he was now receiving from all over Bosnia and Herzegovina.” [pp 162/3]


Archbishop Stepinac, as he amassed the reports arriving from throughout the country, discussed matters both with the other members of the hierarchy and with his priests. It should be noted that here at least in part Maclean misrepresented Mgr Stepinac. There was no question of Mgr Stepinac wanting “the last traces of Byzantium removed from Croat soil”.  For one good and simple reason: one of His Excellency’s bishops was in fact a Catholic of the Slav-Byzantine rite in full communion with Rome, Mgr Simrak, Bishop of Krizevci. Obviously, so too were many of his priests. In 1939 there were estimated to be about 55,000 Catholic Yugoslavs of the Byzantine rite consisting of a nucleus of Croatised Serbs. In 1464, Matthias Corvinus, King of Hungary, drove the Turks out of part of Bosnia and established on the border military colonies of refugee Serbs of the Eastern Orthodox Church. In 1611 these people came into “unambiguous communion” with the Holy See and their then Bishop, Simeon Vretanjic, was recognised as a “ritual vicar” (ie, pertaining to adherents of that Byzantine rite now in communion with Rome, HMcL) of the then Bishopric of Zagreb. The Tablet, Vol 188, No. 5556, 2 Nov 1946 @p229 states:

(Bishop) Simeon’s profession of faith was received by St Robert Bellarmine; and he lived at the Monastery of Marca, which was a centre for Serbian reunion, of which there was some talk at the time, several individual Bishops, who had fled from the Turks into Hungary, being reconciled. In 1739 Marca was burned down by brigands, and when these Byzantines were in 1777 given a diocesan Bishop, his See was fixed at Krizevci (Kä¢rä¢s, Kreutz, Crisium) in Croatia, not far from Zagreb. He was at first a suffragan of the Primate of Hungary, but since 1920 of the Archbishop of Zagreb.
During the eighteenth century there was a migration of Rusins from the Podkarpatska Rus to the Backa and elsewhere, and another of Galician Ukrainians to Bosnia and Slavonia at the end of the nineteenth, and there are Rumanian and Macedonian Bulgar elements also in this heterogenous collection, held together by the Catholic faith and their common Eastern rite. In 1939 they were found in five more or less ethnic groups in various parts of Yugoslavia, the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Krizevci covering members of his rite throughout the country. Only the original Serbs are completely Croatised; the remainder conserve at least their language of origin.”

 Mgr Simrak died aged 63 in Zagreb on 9 August 1946 as a consequence of his imprisonment and mistreatment in one of Tito’s prisons. The Tablet Vol 188, No. 5554, 19 Oct 1946 @p196 notes that:

“He (Mgr Simrak) had been imprisoned at Crisio by the partisans, on May 12th, 1945, when his episcopal ring was taken from his finger and he was forbidden to offer Mass. One of his canons was at the same time imprisoned, in a small windowless cell; we do not know what has become of him.”

Having consulted his fellow bishops and priests, in November of 1941 Mgr Stepinac addressed a letter to Ante Pavelić. Maclean writes that:


“The tone of the Archbishop’s letter was studiously moderate. He was careful, in particular, not to hold the Poglavnik responsible for the misdeeds of his henchmen. But, for all that, it was not the sort of letter that was calculated to please a man of Pavelić’s temperament, already irritated by the numerous appeals and protests which Monsignor Stepinac had from time to time addressed to him: begging him to spare the lives of hostages and to put a stop to mass executions; criticising his new racial laws, and asking him to grant special treatment to Serbs and Jews who had entered the Catholic Church and to excuse the latter from wearing yellow armbands. His sermons, too, had contained a number of pointed allusions to ‘those who, while glorying in being Catholics or even possessing a spiritual vocation, nevertheless abandon themselves to passion and hatred and forget the essential Christian rule of love and charity.’ In fact it was not long before Dr Pavelić had conceived a hearty dislike for the tall, thin, stubborn, ascetic-looking prelate in his massive palace next to the cathedral. ‘That sniveller,’ the Poglavnik was heard to exclaim a few weeks later, after hearing Stepanic preach at St Mark’s Church on the occasion of the opening of the new Croat Assembly, ‘That sniveller is trying to give me a lesson in politics.’”[p166]

What had the Archbishop written? Dated November 20, the letter began by explaining that the annual Conference of the Catholic hierarchy had reached certain conclusions, “notably”, quotes Maclean:


“that questions appertaining to conversions to Catholicism were a matter for decision by the Roman Catholic hierarchy and by no one else; that only the Roman Catholic hierarchy could appoint ‘missionaries’ to preside over conversions; and that only those might enter the Church who did so from genuine conversion and of their own free will… It was impossible to deny that horrible acts of cruelty and violence had been committed, he noted. (The reports he had received from his Bishops were sufficient proof of that. HMcL) It is essential to take a strictly realistic view. Even the Orthodox Church has its genuine adherents, who cannot automatically change their views or their nature overnight. A purely mechanical procedure is for this reason apt to have unfortunate results… In this manner houses are built on sand, and not on rock, and when the rains descends and the wind blows nothing is left of them but ruins.”[p165]


His Grace did not blame the Government for what had happened regarding it rather as “the work of irresponsible elements who did not realize how much harm they were doing.” The Poglavnik’s “decision to establish peace and justice merited the gratitude of all.” But the Church, for its part, was bound to condemn the crimes and excesses which had been committed and ”to demand the fullest respect for the individual, regardless of status, sex, religion, nationality or race.” In conclusion, he ventured: “We are sure that you share our view and that you will do everything in your power to check the violence of isolated individuals and to ensure that control is vested in the responsible authorities. Should this not be the case, any attempts to convert the Schismatics will be in vain.”
Stevan K Pavlowitch in the Nations of the World (Ernest Benn Ltd, London 1971) writes: 


“Archbishop Stepinac of Zagreb was no Ustasha sympathizer. He was a traditional Catholic prelate, a Nationalist Croat, and an anti-Communist. As such, he initially welcomed independence, but his increasing uneasiness about the Ustasha regime quickly led him to hesitations which paralysed the Catholic Church in Croatia almost as much as the Peasant Party. Serious misgivings were especially felt by the hierarchy about the government’s campaign of conversions, carried out according to principles and with means that had little to do with religion. After the archbishop’s protests against violence and the disregard of established canonical procedure, the government’s continued policy of conversions for racial ends, which made martyrs and pseudo-converts, which used the Catholic Church and tinged it with infamy, caused a collective remonstrance, addressed in November to the Poglavnik.” [p113]

After the declaration of the establishment of the Independent State of Croatia, His Holiness Pope Pius XII had in May of 1941 cordially received the former Duke of Spoleto, now known as King Tomislav II, as Head of State, and the Poglavnik, Ante Pavelić, as the Head of Government of a Catholic country. In addition, Mgr Marcone, “a robust-looking Benedictine” according to Maclean, was sent to Zagreb as Papal Legate, NOT as Nuncio since historically the Holy See does not grant recognition to states formed during a conflict while that conflict remains unresolved by international treaty. Maclean records that Mgr Marcone “joined with gusto in the official life of the new capital.” Pressed by representatives of the Independent State of Croatia in Rome to grant diplomatic status, the officials of the Secretariat of State “though friendly and sympathetic, were inclined to be evasive and to talk at length of the Vatican’s neutral status.” Maclean continues:

“There were also signs that some, at any rate, of the cardinals had received unfavourable reports of what was happening in Croatia. Cardinal Maglione, the Cardinal Secretary of State, spoke of ‘not very nice stories’. And Cardinal Tisserant, the heavily bearded Cardinal Secretary for the Eastern Congregation [he means the Congregation for the Oriental Church; the Prefecture had been reserved to the Holy Father himself at the erection of that Congregation by Benedict XV, but this is no longer the case; it should be noted here that Cardinal Tisserant had a measure of direct responsibility for Mgr Simrak and his Slav-Byzantine rite See], had, in conversation with Pavelić’s diplomatic representative in Rome, made some very wounding remarks about the alleged ‘independence’ of the Independent State of Croatia and about Croats generally, and had gone on to comment most unfavourably on the atrocities committed by the Ustasha. Indeed, the tone of his remarks had been so critical and so ironical that Lorković [Mladen], the Ustasha Minister of Foreign Affairs, had been moved to scrawl the words ‘Oprez! Neprijatelj!’ — ‘Look out! An enemy!’ — across the foot of the dispatch reporting them.”[p167]

 Pavlowitch writes:

“In May 1941, the Pope had received Pavelić, and he had sent a legate to Croatia, but the Holy See had not recognised the N.D.H. (the Independent State of Croatia) and continued to maintain diplomatic relations with the exiled Yugoslav government. Fully aware of the facts, and with an anti-Ustasha lobby in the Vatican itself, the papacy maintained a reserved, and at times even disapproving, attitude towards the boastful Catholicism of the Ustashas.”

Regretfully, however, Pavlowitch notes that the papal attitude notwithstanding, at least some of the “Catholic leadership, and many clerics continued to give them (the Ustasha) enthusiastic support.”

Maclean notes that reports reached Archbishop Stepinac of “priests being actually threatened with physical violence by the panic-stricken crowds who besieged their presbyteries because they would not admit them fast enough to the Church.” He goes on to observe:

“This presented the Archbishop with yet another problem: whatever the exact provisions of Canon Law, could he, in all conscience, condemn these unfortunates to certain death by refusing them admission to the Church? In a circular dated March 2nd, 1942, he gave his clergy discretion to overlook ‘secondary motives’ for wishing to enter the Church, providing the essential motive was also present in the candidates, namely, a genuine belief in the Catholic faith ‘or at any rate genuine — (genuine!) — good will’. And even where these conditions did not appear to be fulfilled, the priest was authorised to ‘pursue the matter further’. Thus, mainly from humanitarian motives, the door was opened a little wider than strict interpretation of Canon Law would perhaps have permitted and the number of conversions to Catholicism multiplied still further.”[p168]

Maclean relates that by the end of 1942:

“… the attitude of the senior Catholic clergy still left much to be desired. Archbishop Stepinac remained, it is true, scrupulously correct in his attitude towards the regime. He continued to attend official functions and ceremonies; he had become Chaplain General to the Croat Armed Forces; he accepted and wore the high decoration which Pavelić had bestowed on him. But at the same time he continued to intervene on behalf of the victims of the regime, while his letters and speeches and sermons became ever more critical of the Ustasha, of their methods and of their racial theories and laws. So critical, in fact, as to be almost defiant. ‘The Church’, the Archbishop wrote to Pavelić in March 1943, ‘on learning that there were to be fresh persecutions of the Jews, ‘does not fear any power in this world, when it is a question of defending the elementary rights of men.’”[p201]
When, later, Maclean comes to deal with the emergence of Tito’s “People’s Democracy”, he has this to say:

“At the head of the Catholic hierarchy during these difficult times stood Archbishop Aloysius Stepinac. Some of the other clergy and bishops, notably Archbishop (Ivan) Šarić of Sarajevo, who had been one of Pavelić’s most enthusiastic supporters, had found it advisable to leave Croatia with the Germans. Stepinac, who had shown considerably less enthusiasm for the Ustasha and had even sought to restrain Pavelić from some of his worst excesses, remained to face the Poglavnik’s no less formidable successor. His duty, as he saw it, was to his flock.

From Tito’s point of view, Archbishop Stepinac represented an awkward problem. In June 1945, shortly after Stepinac’s release from a fortnight’s imprisonment, the two men had met in Zagreb for the purpose of finding a modus vivendibetween Church and State. Their meeting had not been unfriendly. Each had expressed his understanding for the other’s point of view and his desire for an agreement. ‘Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s’, the Archbishop had said, ‘and to God that which is God’s.’ And they had parted with mutual expressions of good will. But Caesar in the event had claimed a larger share than the Church had seen fit to accord him and soon relations were more strained than ever. In upholding what he regarded as his Church’s rights, Stepinac showed himself adamant. Nor did he hesitate to make his views as widely known as possible by means of his sermons and pastoral letters.

In Tito’s eyes such an attitude was openly subversive of the Government’s authority. And subversion was not something he was prepared to tolerate. He was thus confronted with a dilemma. Clearly, it would be difficult to liquidate the Archbishop, as Mihaljovic had been liquidated. On the other hand, there could be no question of allowing him to continue his activities unhindered. In the end he decided to ask the Vatican, through the Papal Nuncio in Belgrade, to replace Stepinac. But here he met with an abrupt refusal. The Holy See, he was told, did not allow temporal authorities any say in Church appointments. He had encountered an organization as uncompromising as that to which he himself owed allegiance.

It had not been Tito’s intention to force, at this stage, a showdown with the Vatican, which still commanded the unswerving loyalty of several million devout Catholics in Croatia and Slovenia. A further period of cold war would have suited him better. But if the Vatican wanted a showdown, he was ready for one. Withhout further delay he gave instructions for the Public Prosecutor to prepare a case against Stepinac as a collaborator with the enemy during the war as an active opponent of the present regime. Material, of a sort, was not lacking.”

And with that wry comment Maclean then goes on to deal with the Stallinesque Show Trial of Archbishop Aloysisus Stepinac. But who was this Tito, persecutor of both Archbishop Aloysius Stepinac and the Catholic Church?

In June of 1937, the Comintern envoy to the Yugoslav Communist Party (the CPY) leadership, Milan Gorki, was summoned to Moscow. Arrested at the Lux Hotel in the apartment of his comrade D Manuilsky, he was accused of sabotaging Popular Front tactics, of being a friend of Nikolai Bukharin (executed on 15 March 1938, this coincide with the Anschluss of Austria) and of committing “deviationist errors” in his pamphlet Novim Putenma. His wife, Betty Glen, was also arrested and she was accused of being an agent of the British Secret Intelligence Service. Needless to say, they were liquidated. The new envoy sent by Moscow to Yugoslavia was one Josip Tito-Broz.

Born on 25 May 1892 (perhaps) in the village of Kumrovic on the Croat-Slovene border, after his primary education Tito had become an engineering apprentice at Sisak. There he later joined the Engineering workers Trade Union and so automatically became a member of the Social Democratic Party of Croatia. After military service, he worked in factories in Slovenia, Austria and Bohemia. He was said by his official biographer, V Didijer, to have “impressed his employers with his skill, and his mates with his strongly developed feelings of working class solidarity.”

On the outbreak of WWI, he was serving in the Austro-Hungarian Army. He claimed that he had been arrested in 1914 for spreading anti-war propaganda. Nonetheless, he took part in the Austro-Hungarian invasion of Serbia in the Autumn of 1914. Later, he served on the Eastern front, but did not, like so many of his comrades, surrender to the Russians. Wounded, he was taken prisoner and was held for a long time in POW camp. He did not volunteer for the Volunteer Divisions of Yugoslav POWs. After the overthrow of the Czar, Tito escaped to Petrograd and later claimed that he took part in the July demonstrations, was arrested hiding under the Neva bridges and was imprisoned in the Petropavlovsk fortress prison for three weeks before being shipped back to Siberia.

He later claimed that he supported the Bolsheviks when they came to power and fought for three days in the Czech Legion before becoming a member of the Yugoslav Section of the Bolshevik Party. He returned to Yugoslavia in August 1920 with his Russian wife and worked as skilled mechanic. At the same time he worked as an agitator for the Bolsheviks within the Communist Party of Yugoslavia. His progress from then on was entirely predictable. In 1924 he joined the District Committee of the CPY in Croatia. By 1927 he was member of the Party Committee for Zagreb. In June of that year the Zagreb Party Committee ensured that he became the Secretary of the Metal-workers Union for Croatia, which was one of the strongest affiliates of the Industrial Trades Unions of Yugoslavia.

In February of 1928 at the conference of the Zagreb Party Organisation he was the leader of the anti-fraction group. In the Spring of that year, he was sentenced to two weeks in prison for his part in the break-up of the First of May indoor meeting organised by the Socialists and was arrested again in June for organising the riots in Zagreb. When he appeared in court in relation to this charge, he was represented by Dr I Politeo whose other clients in the criminal courts would later include the murderer of Interior Minister Draskovic and Archbishop Aloysius Stepinac!

Didijer says in his preface to With Tito through the War: “In no other country in the world, in no Communist Party outside the Soviet Union, was the devotion (to the Soviet Union and to Stalin personally) so powerful as in Yugoslavia during the War.” And that devotion was to be reflected in the adoption by Tito of Stalinist jurisprudence. Fred Singleton notes in his Twentieth Century Yugoslavia that at the end of WWII “a new revolutionary republic had come into being with a new kind of legality… Archbishop Stepinac had also compromised himself and his Church by his failure to condemn Pavelić and by his refusal to co-operate with the new regime.”[p 106, my emphasis]

It was to be this refusal to co-operate with the regime in its endeavours to destroy his Church that was to seal the fate of Archbishop Sepinac. Dr Politeo was in theory allowed carte blanche to call witnesses in Tito’s defence. The Prosecutor at the trial of Mgr Stepinac in theory had similar rights. There was one major difference. In practice the prosecutor was allowed to exercise his rights, Dr Politeo wasn’t.

Scottish Bishop Appointments

$
0
0
I have seen, and heard, it alluded to on several occasions and by differing persons of varying supposed authority, that appointments to the Hierarchy of Scotland in particular, but also to Anglophone places in general, are “usually” made on a Tuesday. I had myself never formed this impression and while not certain that it was untrue, I was unsure whether it was true. So I had a wee look back at appointments to the Scottish Hierarchy in relatively recent days.

For me, that meant starting with James Donald Scanlan in whose choir I sang at Motherwell Cathedral as a young boy. I can remember Fr George Donaldson coming into our classroom in the Hall of Our Lady of Good Aid, Cathedral, Primary School, Motherwell, in January of 1964, my class were in our last year, to tell Mr Donnelly, our teacher and the deputy Head, that Bishop Scanlan had been appointed Archbishop of Glasgow (later, I sang at his successor’s, Bishop Thomson’s, episcopal ordination and installation on February 24, 1965, my first year at Our Lady’s High School, Motherwell).

Archbishop Scanlan was appointed Coadjutor Bishop of Dunkeld on Saturday, April 27, 1946, and succeeded on Tuesday, May 31, 1949, but this was because of the death of Bishop Toner and not a Vatican announcement. He was translated to Motherwell on Monday, May 23, 1955, and from there to the Metropolitan See of Glasgow on Wednesday, January 29, 1964. Not a Tuesday in sight.

However, Archbishop Tartaglia was appointed to Paisley on Tuesday, September 13, 2005, and subsequently translated to the Metropolitan See of Glasgow on Tuesday, July 24, 2012. But then Archbishop Conti was appointed to Aberdeen on Monday,February 28, 1977, and translated to the Metropolitan See of Glasgow on Tuesday, January 15, 2002.

Our three resident cardinals are a mixed bag (in more ways than one): Cardinal Gray was appointed to the Metropolitan See of Saint Andrews and Edinburgh on Wednesday, June 20, 1951; Cardinal Winning was appointed Auxiliary of Glasgow on Friday, October 22, 1971, and translated to the Metropolitan See of Glasgow on Tuesday, April 23, 1974, and; Cardinal O’Brien was appointed to the Metropolitan See of Saint Andrews and Edinburgh onThursday, May 30, 1985.

In Aberdeen, Bishop Gilbert was appointed on Saturday, June 4, 2011, whilst his predecessor, Bishop Moran, was appointed on Monday, October 13, 2003. In Motherwell, Bishop Devine had been appointed Auxiliary in Glasgow on Thursday, May 5, 1977, and was translated to Motherwell on Friday, May 13, 1983. His predecessor, Bishop Thomson (Francis Alexander Spalding Warden, crazy name but a remarkably clever guy: First Class Honours in Maths from both Edinburgh and Cambridge universities) was appointed on Tuesday, December 8, 1964.

The current Administrator of Motherwell Diocese, Bishop Toal, was appointed to Argyll and The Isles on Thursday, October 16, 2008. His predecessor, Bishop Murray, was appointed on Wednesday, November 3, 1999 (his predecessor, Roddie Wright, of unhappy memory, had been appointed on Tuesday, December 11, 1990).

I acknowledge that this is not an exhaustive survey of all the appointments to the Scottish Hierarchy since the restitution of 1878, but I think it fair to point out that Tuesday has been the day of appointment on a few occasions but in truth appointments have come on every day of the week, bar Sunday alone (for obvious reasons).


deValera and Irish neutrality

$
0
0
Thanks to the kindness of a friend, I have been able to retrieve many notes locked in old floppy disks. I shall publish some of them as I manage to render them into a readable form.

History teaches that neutrality was ever the position adopted by small European nations in the face of belligerence involving the larger ones. It was, of course, in no small measure due to the actions of the Westminster Parliament and the government of the United Kingdom that as war loomed in the late 1930s Ireland found herself to be, both in terms of population and the size of her economy, a much smaller nation than she ought to have by then been.

Less than a generation after the craven partition of the country following the Anglo-Irish war, which is characterised in the minds of the Irish by the brutal excesses of the Black and Tans; only a few generations after the Great Famine, which saw millions condemned to death by starvation and disease, or to essentially forced migration in the most Hellish, and often fatal, conditions; with the bitter memories of how they were abandoned on the high altars of both laissez faire economics and Disraeli’s vaulting ambition still an open sore; with all this borne in mind could anyone in their right senses honestly have expected an Irish government to exhort its people to come to the aid of the colonial oppressor?

And yet on 6 October 1937 Malcolm MacDonald, son of Ramsay and at the time Dominions Secretary, could cable London from Dublin and reassure the Prime Minister that de Valera “would guarantee that in any case the Irish Free State would NOT be used to embarrass us in war.” Dev had first given this assurance in the Dail on May 29, 1935 when he said “Our territory will NEVER be permitted to be used as a base for attack upon Britain.” (My emphasis, but he has been reported as having given the same emphasis in his speech.)

With so many in Ireland enjoying the closest ties of kinship with the diaspora on John Bull’s only island, how could Dev do, or even contemplate, otherwise?

Did de Valera, as has often been asserted by Ulster Unionist-suppporting right-wingers on this side of the Irish Sea, frustrate the extension of conscription to the six counties? No, but he did point out the utter hypocrisy which would be involved in seeking to force Irish Catholics in the six counties to fight for the freedom to self-determination of other small nations in Europe when they themselves were denied that self-same right.

Even without Dev intervening,  the Catholics in the north east corner of Ireland remembered well the lessons to be drawn from Redmond’s and wee Joe Devlin’s betrayal by Her Majesty’s Imperial Government after they had exhorted their followers to enlist at the outset of the First World War!

In the event it was not deValera, nor was it the weight of American public opinion, but rather JM Andrews, the Stormont Prime Minister, who towards the end of May 1941 persuaded Churchill to abandon any thoughts of conscription in the six counties.

Did de Valera “minimise co-operation with the Allies’ D-Day vital (contiguous) security clampdown” as one correspondent of the editor of The (Glasgow) Herald dared to suggest? Certainly not! In point of fact when the American General Jacob L Devers crash landed in Ireland late in 1943, his briefcase contained all the details of the proposed Operation Overlord. General Devers, his briefcase and the secrets of the D-Day landing were promptly repatriated safely, intact and secretly to Britain.

Not only that, as the D-Day landings approached, the Irish Government decided that the Curragh Interment Centre was too overcrowded. The Allied pilots who were transferred out to ease the problem somehow found themselves inexplicably delivered into the safekeeping of the military authorities in the six counties contrary to the Geneva Convention, but perfectly in tune with the spirit of Irish pro-British neutrality!

As for the old chestnut about de Valera’s call upon the German Ambassador, Dr Edward Hempel, the protocols covering diplomatic relations were largely worked out at the Court of St James, London. Since in Europe Sweden, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal and Ireland were non-belligerents, English devised protocol dictated that they formally extend their condolences to the German people, via the Ambassador, on the death of the Head of State, irrespective of whomsoever or whatsoever that person be.

Eamon de Valera fully realised that he could, and perhaps should, have delegated this task to an underling. However, de Valera took the view, and I think rightly, that Dr Hempel had been a good friend to Ireland — and without betraying his own country, a good friend also to the American and British governments. In the only comment, at least that I am aware of, he ever volunteered on the matter, Dev said that he personally determined that he “certainly was not going to add to his humiliation in the hour of defeat.”

It had, to put it mildly, bugger at all to do with any liking for, or admiration of, Hitler!

In the course of the Clydebank Blitz, the Luftwaffe also bombed and damaged other areas in West-Central Scotland. Presumably by accident, they managed to hit the premises belonging to the German Consulate at 9 Park Circus, Charing Cross, Glasgow.

Dr Werner Grecor, the German Consul, had departed Glasgow, ostensibly on holiday, in August of 1939 before hostilities broke out. He left an envelope containing a contact address to be opened in case of emergency with the Consulate’s lawyers: Chalk, Bertram & Anderson, Solicitors, 38 Bath Street, Glasgow. In the event, when Mr George Chalk instructed his apprentice, Willie McAfee — who was in his 80s was still the proud possessor of the longest continuously held Practising Certificate at the Glasgow Bar when he informed me of all this — to check the contents of this envelope, it was found to contain the name and address of an hotel at Scappa Flow!

When hostilities did duly break out, in accordance with the rules governing the conduct of diplomatic relations, the Rules of the Court of St James, Switzerland was nominated as the “friendly power” to represent the German government’s interests in Britain. When the Swiss Embassy learned of the damage done to the German Consulate in Glasgow, Messrs Chalk & Co were instructed to ascertain the extent and value of the damage done to the German government’s property and to submit a claim for compensation in that amount to the Foreign Office in Whitehall.

In accordance with those diplomatic rules, Winston Churchill’s War Cabinet settled this claim from Hitler’s Nazi regime promptly and in full. Nazi Germany was reimbursed for the damage done to its premises in Glasgow by its own air force in the course of the Luftwaffe’s attempts to destroy the Clyde shipbuilding industry.

In effect Churchill authorised the British exchequer to help fund, at least in part, the Nazi war effort!


Obviously had this not been effectively hushed up, Churchill could not have sought to so grotesquely misrepresent deValera’s later act of personal kindness Dr Edward Hempel when that good man suddenly found himself in a parlous situation.

Irish MPs at Westminster and The Oath of Allegiance

$
0
0
Thanks to the kindness of a friend, I have been able to retrieve many notes locked in old floppy disks. I shall publish some of them as I manage to render them into a readable form.

There is to me something absurdly funny about the idea of the Westminster parliament requiring an Irishman to swear an oath of allegiance to the Crown. After all, this is the same parliament which for over a hundred years passed, year in year out, Tory, Whig, or Liberal government in office, measures “for the better governance of Ireland” and officially called them “coercion Acts”! I would have thought that it stands to reason that if you accept that you have to coerce a people whom you claim to have the right to govern, you are explicitly accepting that that people owe you no debt of loyalty, nor duty of allegiance.

The Succession to the Crown Act of 1707, “An Act for the Security of her Majesty’s Person and Government, and of the Succession to the Crown of Great Britain in the Protestant Line”, does not apply to Ireland and, therefore, since I have as yet not got round to looking at the detail of the Treaty and Act of Union of 1800 and the associated and consequential legislation, I can only assume that there is some other basis for the presumption on the part of the Westminster parliament that there is a requirement for Irish Members to swear an Oath of Allegiance. If for no other reason they might simply aver that there is a general, and almost entirely universally held, legal and moral principle that if you join the club you accept the rules of the club, AS THEY STAND. The problem with the Westminster parliament, from the Irish point of view, is, of course, that even British Prime Ministers have accepted that for Irishmen there is the problem of the legality of the Treaty and Act of Union, and therefore of Irish membership of the Westminster club. This arises because of Irish membership being predicated on the abolition of their own College Green club and, thereafter, enforced merger with that dominated by England at Westminster.

On May 10, 1886 when Gladstone spoke in the House of Commons at Westminster on the Second Reading of his first Irish Home Rule Bill, he never mentioned “champetry”, but he did give eloquent testament to its malign influence in the dealings between the parliaments of England and Ireland prior to the Treaty and Act of Union. Champetry, I should explain, though a lawyer might better advise, is the act of illegally entering into a contract, and, you might be interested to know, one consequence of champetry being involved in a contract is that such a contract will find no friend in the English courts. Under English Common Law a party to a contract can go to court seeking an order requiring “specific performance” of part or of all of that contract by the other party or parties involved. In the case of what is held to be a champetrous contract the court must decline to issue such an order.

In that Second Reading debate, amongst other things, Gladstone had these to say of the wheeling and dealing which led to the Treaty and Act of Union:

“A Union of which I will not say anything more than that I do not desire to rake up the history of that movement ― a horrible and shameful history, for no epithets weaker than these can in the slightest degree describe or indicate ever so faintly the means by which in defiance of the national sentiment of Ireland, consent to the Union was attained ― it was in rank opposition to all the national and patriotic sentiment of Ireland…The Union, whatever may be our opinion with regard to the means by which it was obtained…They [Whig statesmen] said it was in opposition to all that was honourable and upright, most respected, and most disinterested in Ireland, and nothing but mischief, nothing but disorder, nothing but dishonour, could come from a policy founded upon the overriding of all those noble qualities, and by means which would not bear the face of day, imposing the arbitrary will of the Legislature upon the nation, in spite of its almost unanimous opposition.”

Those ‘means which would not bear the face of day’ were, as you no doubt well know, bribery, coercion and corruption on such a grand scale as had not been witnessed since the Scottish Treaty and Act of Union almost a hundred years before. So, since there is such a strong prima facie case that Irish membership of the Westminster parliament is illegal, champetry seeming to void the contract, the Treaty of Union in this case, there must be a presumption that an Oath of Allegiance can only, from a British parliamentarian’s point of view, be a hopeful request of a pressed Irish member and not an, in default, excluding prerequisite

Section XVIII of the 1707 Act shows how seriously the Crown takes the requirement to swear an Oath of Allegiance by expressly stating who are all required to take it in the event of the death of the monarch:

“...All the members of both Houses of Parliament, and every member of the Privy Council, and all Officers or Persons in any Offices, Places, or Employments, Civil or Military, who are or shall be by this Act continued as aforesaid, shall take the said Oaths, and do all other Acts requisite by the Laws and Statutes of this Realm, to qualify themselves to be and continue in their respective Places, Offices, and Employments within such Time, and in such Manner, and under such Pains, Penalties, and Disabilities, as they should or ought to do, had they been newly elected, appointed, constituted, or put into such Offices, Places, or Employments in the usual or ordinary way.”

Section XX of the Act sets out the form the Oath must take and it begins:

“I (name) do truly and sincerely acknowledge, profess, testify, and declare IN MY CONSCIENCE, BEFORE GOD AND THE WORLD..."(my emphasis)
It ends:

“And I do make this Recognition, Acknowledgement, Abjuration, Renunciation, and Promise heartily, willingly and truly, upon the true Faith of a Christian.”

This, then, is not, and is not meant to be, an Oath to be given or taken lightly.

So to what would you as an Irish Member be committing yourself should you decide to take the Oath of Allegiance? Well, of course you would not be required to swear the Oath in the words prescribed in the 1707 Act for that was replaced by the form contained in the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866, which itself was replaced two years later by the form given in the Promissary Oaths Act 1868. This reads:

“I (name) do swear that I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to His/Her Majesty (name), His/Her Heirs and Successors, according to Law, so help me God.”

The “according to Law” does not simply mean your acceptance of, or even acquiescence in, an English Queen having dominion over the country and the people of Ireland for, although the form of the Oath has been modernised, the 1707 Act’s commitments remain unaffected and undiluted by the later adaptations. That is, whereas everything was spelled out in laborious detail in the original Act, according to the parliamentary draftsmanship habits of the day, they are implied in the modern version by their presence in the original which has NOT been repealed, and therefore in effect what you would be implicitly saying and explicitly swearing to is all that was contained in the stylised words of the original Oath:

“I (name) do truly and sincerely acknowledge, profess, testify, and declare in my Conscience, before God and the World, that our Sovereign (name) is lawful and rightful King/Queen of this Realm, and of all other His/Her Majesty’s Dominions and Countries thereunto belonging. And I do solemnly and sincerely declare, that I do believe in my Conscience that the Person pretended to be the Prince of Wales during the life of the late King James, and since his Decease pretending to be, and taking upon himself the Style and Title of King of England by the name of James the Third, hath not any Right or Title whatsoever to the Crown of this Realm, or any other the Dominions thereunto belonging: And I do renounce, refute and abjure any Allegiance or Obedience to him. And I do swear that I will bear Faith and true Allegiance to (name) and (name of His/Her spouse) and I will defend to the utmost of my Power against all traitorous Conspiracies and Attempts whatsoever which shall be made against (name’s) Person, Crown, or Dignity. And I will do my utmost Endeavour to disclose and make known to His/Her Majesty and His/Her Successors, all Treasons and traitorous Conspiracies which I shall know to be against (name) or any of them. And I do faithfully promise to the utmost of my Power to support, maintain, and defend the Succession of the Crown against him the said James, and all other persons whatsoever as the same by an Act entitled ‘An Act for the further Limitation of the Crown, and better Securing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject’, and stands limited to the Princess Sophia, Electress and Duchess Dowager of Hanover, and the Heirs of her Body being Protestants. And all these Things I do plainly and sincerely acknowledge and swear, according to the express Words by me spoken, and according to the plain and common Sense and understanding of the same Words, without any Equivocation, mental Evasion, or secret Reservation whatsoever. And I do make this Recognition, Acknowledgement, Abjuration, Renunciation, and Promise, heartily, willingly and truly, upon the true Faith of a Christian.”

You would, then, be solemnly swearing allegiance to a queen descended not from King James and his issue, but from a foreign, Hanoverian family, whose only qualification and attraction was their separation from the Roman Catholic Church to which most of Nationalist Ireland adhere. You, as an Irish Member and a Catholic, would in effect be accepting that, by your profession of the Catholic faith of your fathers, you are a part of a ‘traitorous Conspiracy’, namely the Church of Rome. You, as an Irish Member and a Republican, would be giving a commitment to ‘support, maintain, and defend the Succession of the Crown’. For you as a practising Catholic to take such an oath, knowing that in your heart you did not believe or mean a word of it, would be to commit a sin; probably, though I am not sure, a mortal one. For you as a Republican to take such an Oath, having been elected on the traditional Irish Republican abstentionist ticket, by an electorate quite well aware of the history behind that Republican commitment to abstentionism, would be a bad joke. Moreover, for you to swear the oath as worded would be, according to the law of England, a crime. The crime would, I think, be high treason. But then I am no jurist, so maybe it would just be low treason. But, either way, such a fine thing for the Speaker of the House of Commons to be encouraging!

The other Acts relevant to the taking of the Oath of Allegiance (the Parliamentary Oaths Act of 1866, the Promissary Oaths Act of 1868,and the Oaths Act of 1978) in no way alter the absurdity of requiring a republican, any republican, not simply or exclusively an Irish Republican, to take an Oath involving paying homage to, and pledging continuing allegiance to, the Crown. Even the facility of being allowed to ‘affirm’ affects by not one whit the position of a republican since you simply substitute the appropriate replacement words to avoid a religious connotation.

Of course, in other times, and in other ways, the British Crown has demonstrated how seriously it regards the swearing, or administering, of oaths by Irishmen. Two hundred years ago, on October 14, 1797 the United Irishman William Orr stood trial at Carrickfergus on the trumped up charge that he did administer the oath of the United Irishmen to the soldier Wheatly contrary to that recently introduced law of which the authors of Speeches from the dock said: “One of the first blows aimed by the Government against the United Irishmen was the passing of the Act of Parliament (36 George III) which constituted the administration of their oath a felony.”

That Orr was entirely innocent was of no avail in his defence for, in this as sadly in so many other instances: “the bloodthirsty agents of the Crown did not look in vain for Irishmen to co-operate with them in their infamy.”

They go on to tell us that: “Hardly had sentence of death been passed on William Orr when compunction seemed to seize on those who had aided in securing that result. The witness Wheatly, who subsequently became insane, and is believed to have died by his own hand, made an affidavit before a magistrate acknowledging that he had sworn falsely against Orr. Two of the jury made depositions setting forth that they had been induced to join in the verdict of guilty while under the influence of drink; two others swore that they had been terrified into the same course by threats of violence.”

Needless to say that when these sworn depositions were laid before the Lord-Lieutenant, Lord Camden, they were of no avail. As Orr himself observed, the government, using the oath as a pretext, had “laid down a system having for its object murder and devastation.”

All in all one might think that there has been too much swearing in Ireland.

Vatican News: Changes afoot at the Secretariat of State

$
0
0
At the same time as it was officially reported that Pope Francis had accepted the resignation of Cardinal Secretary of State Bertone, but putting its execution on hold to October 15, and appointing Mgr Parolin to succeed him, with the same condition applied, he was also reported to have confirmed in their offices the other superiors of the Secretariat of State. These were listed as: Archbishop Giovanni Angelo Becciu, sostituto, that is Secretariat of State Substitute for General Affairs; Archbishop Dominique Mamberti, secretary for Relations with States; Archbishop Georg Ganswein, prefect of the Papal Household; Msgr. Peter B. Wells, assessor for General Affairs of the Secretariat of State (and President of the Financial Security Committee); and, Msgr. Antoine Camilleri, under-secretary for Relations with States (and a Member of the Financial Security Committee).

Although they were not mentioned in the announcement as their positions, although senior, do not strictly qualify as “superiors”, it may be assumed that Archbishop Luciano Suriani (a classmate of Mgr Pater Magee, President of our Scottish Catholic National (Marriage) Tribunal at the Pontifical Eccesiastcal Academy), Delegate for Pontifical Representations, and, Msgr. José Avelino Bettencourt, Head of Protocol, have also been confirmed in position.




The important point here is that he has included in this group Archbishop Ganswein as if the Papal Household were part of the Secretariat of State. IT ISN’T. At least not yet. This may well indicate that in any rearrangement to come of the Secretariat, the Papal Household will be formally incorporated into the Secretariat, or rather into its remnant based on the First Section. Incorporating the Papal Household into the First Section does not make any sense other than in the context of the First and Second Sections being formally separated.

Visitors to Fr Ray Blake's excellent Blog will be aware that I had reached this conclusion very shortly after the announcements were made. Subsequent to that it was announced that Pope Francis had issued a summons to all the dicastery heads to meet with him. The letter was sent by Archbishop Ganswein, not Cardinal Bertone or Archbishop Becciu.

Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know.

$
0
0
“Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know.” 
― Lao TzuTao Teh Ching
As a former science teacher, I have always had mixed feelings about this particular quote from Tao Teh Chin. Pondering the troubles which have befallen Fr Ray Blake I could come to but only one conclusion: Someone, somewhere — it may, of course, be a lot of people a lot of wheres — wants to shut him up; to undermine him; to subvert all the good work he is doing, firstly in Brighton, and, secondly, in his Blog. And it isn’t Bill Gardner.

No. Brighton and Hove Argus’s disreputable scumbag doesn’t have the brains to produce an attack like this. Somebody put him up to it.

As a Catholic, I have always been confident that a son of the Church, particularly when that son is a priest in good standing, faces being unjustly, unfairly traduced in the public square, then he can be confident of the full support of the leader of the local leader of the Church.


Apparently this is NOT the case in the Diocese of Arundel and Brighten where Bishop Kieran Conry is deafeningly silent.

Annulment and Cardinal Heard

$
0
0
On Friday, January 22, 2010, I published a post on Cardinal Heard which was simply an explanation of how I had come to do a wee bit of research into the life of the only Oxford Rowing, or any other, Blue to be admitted to the Sacred College. Sadly, I did not follow it up with other extracts from my essay. This morning, reading an interesting post on Fr Ray Blake’s Blog “A Greek Practice” (http://marymagdalen.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/a-greek-practice.html)  brought to mind how Fr Theo Heard, assistant priest of Most Holy Trinity, Dockhead, Bermondsey, Diocese of Southwark, came to be called to Rome to replace Mgr John Prior on the Sacred Roman Rota. And it was all to do with one of the most astonishing annulment cases heard by the Rota in the Twentieth Century. Indeed, the details foxed the readers of The Times.

Oxford Blue, Roman Purple

An auditor

Almost inevitably, a man — Rev Fr Dr William Theodore Heard MA (Oxon), PhD, DD, JCD (all the Greg, all summa cum laude) — could not for long escape the call to Rome. Although possessed of such manifest talents, for a priest happy and fulfilled in his lot, serving in a parish and among people whom he clearly loved, and happily doing the job for which he had been ordained, it was perhaps not so much a “call”, more of an unwanted summons. Either way, in Rome, on September 30, 1927, Pope Pius XI named him a domestic prelate with the title and style of the Right Reverend Monsignor and on the following day, October 1, 1927, appointed him as an uditore di Rota, an auditor, that is judge, of the Sacred Roman Rota Appeals Tribunal.

The vacancy on the Tribunal for an Enlish language auditor had come about as the result of the death in Darlington after a long illness of Mgr John Prior, the English Dean of the Sacred Roman Rota, a former vice-Rector of the Beda College, Rome (who had worked with Mgr, later Cardinal, Merry del Val on preparing the Bull Apostilicae Curae for Pope Leo XIII in which Anglican orders were decreed to be “absolutely null and utterly void”). The Church authorities in Rome, according to Cardinal Heard’s obituarist, “looked around for some distinguished jurist from the British Empire” to replace Mgr Prior. However, language alone would not have been the only consideration. And, after appointment, because of the way that judges are allotted cases there could have been no question of his being responsible solely, or even mainly, with appeals from the English-speaking world.

The Rota’s working language, of course, was Latin, but witness statements and evidence might even in those days have been given or presented originally in other languages. Mgr Heard was fluent in English, obviously, Latin, Italian and French. It was the recollection of Cardinal Winning (who inspired my essay), who knew Cardinal Heard well, that there were also another couple of languages he would have been able to get by in, but he was not sure which. Post-Vatican II, or to be more precise post-1967, dioceses were allowed to present documents to the Vatican in the vernacular. Cardinal Heard was a member of the commission of three cardinals appointed by Pope Paul VI, in response to the earnest entreaties of the Council Fathers, to investigate the workings of the curia and to propose reforms which would make the Vatican more accessible to, and more responsive to, the world-wide, universal Church. His Eminence was a party to this recommendation on the use of the vernacular. However, in 1927, when he was appointed to the Rota, although auditors and advocates conducted their business in Latin, lay witnesses were not required to be fluent in its use.

Mgr Heard was well known within the Catholic Church in England at that time for three reasons. Many younger priests knew him as a result of his having acted as Confessor to the students of the Venerabile; he would also have been known within the Diocese of Southwark and further afield through his work on the Diocesan Court; and of course he would have stood out because of his triple doctorates in canon law, divinity and philosophy. And that Rowing Blue, making it four. The Southwark Diocesan Court, with such expertise at its disposal in the body of one person, must have been the envy of every other Bishop in the country. But that notwithstanding, how did he come to the notice of the Vatican authorities? Obviously the English hierarchy would have been eager to advance the cause of one of their own (albeit he was a proud Scotsman) when Mgr Prior died and a vacancy arose in the Rota, but there was more to it than that.

The Timesof Monday, November 15, 1926, in its “Telegrams in brief” column on page 13 carried a small item which was to precipitate a great storm of controversy. And the Rev Fr Dr William Theodore Heard, Officialis of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Southwark, was right in the eye of that storm. The item read:

“Reuter’s Rome correspondent says that the Sacred Roman Rota has confirmed the decree of the Diocesan Court of Southwark annulling the marriage of the Duke of Marlborough with Miss Consuela Vanderbilt.”

On the following day, Tuesday, November 16, on page 14, The Times carried a report from Reuters, New York, under the banner headline “U.S. BISHOP’S CRITICISM OF ANNULMENT” which read:

“New York, Nov.15. The report that the Sacred Roman Rota had confirmed the decree of the Diocesan Court of Southwark annulling the Duke of Marlborough’s first marriage to Miss Consuela Vanderbilt was described as ‘amazing and incredible’ by Bishop Manning in the course of a sermon yesterday.

Speaking as the Bishop of the diocese in which the marriage originally took place, Dr Manning declared that the action of the Roman Catholic Church in this case was most serious, and likely to have far-reaching consequences. The Bishop added: ‘One of the ways in which our witness for Christ is called for to-day is in regard to the sacredness and permanence of marriage.’

Dr Manning, who is Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Diocese of New York, is one of the leading High Churchmen of the Episcopal denomination, and is well known for his leaning towards Rome. Reuter”

On Friday, November 26, The Times reported further on Bishop Manning’s fury. From Reuters’s New York bureau:

“In the course of a Thanksgiving sermon in the Cathedral of St John the Divine, New York, Bishop Manning, Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Diocese of New York, again criticized the Roman Catholic Church for its annulment of the Marlborough-Vanderbilt marriage as an ‘unwarranted intrusion and impertinence’.”

If the working man on the upper deck of the Clapham omnibus had little or nothing to say on the matter, the readers of The Times had plenty. Over the weeks following the announcement of the confirmation by the Sacred Roman Rota of the decree of nullity, To the Editor of The Times became an oft-used phrase as pen was put furiously to paper.

Naturally enough, while the Episcopalians were on the one hand incandescent with rage at Roman interference in an Anglican marriage, or, more correctly, an American Protestant Episcopalian one, the Catholics on the other were quite content that the Church had done no wrong. After all, firstly, it was hardly the Church’s fault that it had never been a canonically valid marriage in the first place and, secondly, the Church only became involved when one of the parties to the marriage contract wished to convert to Rome and so sought to regularise her position. It could be argued that the Church in fact paid the American Protestant Episcopalian hierarchy a compliment by treating the matter as if the original marriage ceremony had been carried out by a cleric in good standing with Rome, one whose claim to holy orders was unimpeachable. This almost certainly would not have happened had the case come before the Rota only a few years earlier.

It is clear that the Rota were suitably impressed by Fr Heard’s handling of the whole matter. Even more lustre must have been added to his reputation with both his English superiors and Rome when the following appeared on page 15 of The Times dated February 2, 1927:

The Duke of Marlborough
The Duke of Marlborough was received into the Roman Catholic Church in the chapel of Archbishop’s House Westminster by the Reverend CC Martindale SJ at noon yesterday. The Duchess of Marlborough, the Countess of Abington, Lady Gwendeline Spencer-Churchill, and Lord Lovat were present. Cardinal Bourne received the Duke and Duchess immediately afterwards and gave them his blessing.


And so it was that Mgr Heard came to take up residence once more in the Venerabile, although only temporarily until such time as he could establish his own apartment in the city. It is not known whether any students remained in the English College, in whatever capacity, who had been there when, as an ordained postgraduate student, Theodore Heard had functioned as confessor prior to his return to England in 1921. However, even if there were none, he nonetheless received a rousing welcome from both staff and students when the Rector, Mgr Arthur Hindsley, who would later become Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, officially welcomed him back to the College.

Archbishop Leo Cushley's Installation

$
0
0
(A slightly edited version of this was published in The Scottish Catholic Observer on September 27, 2013.)

Who could deny that the episcopal ordination and installation of the second most important out of the two metropolitan archbishops in a wee Protestant, European country with a statistically almost insignificant Catholic population — Saint Andrews and Edinburgh circa 116,000 Catholics, Glasgow circa 225,000 Catholics; total population of Scotland in excess of 5,000,000 — is wholly insignificant in the greater scheme of Catholic things?

Well, me actually.

Two days before Mgr Leo Cushley formally took up his responsibilities, an interview given by his former most important boss gave rise to an excess of joy among those who hate the Catholic Church — from the New York Times to the Pink News via CNN and the National Catholic Reporter; I can’t tell you about The Tablet, I never read it now that it has ceased to be a Catholic magazine, but I wouldn’t be surprised.

Our new Holiness, Pope Francis, they have proclaimed, has declared that homosexuality, abortion, artificial insemination, embryonic stem cell research, divorce and remarriage, marriage of priests — they haven’t, at least not yet, included marriage of priests to each other — ordination of women and anything and everything else you care to add, no matter how apparently absurd never mind outrageous, is now OK. That which had been taught by Pope Benedict XVI and his 264 predecessors and the man to whom they owe their lineage’s and teachings’ very existence, Jesus of Nazareth, Son of Mary, the Christ, are oot the windae.

Halelujah. Or not, as the case may be.

For those of us now upset, confused, fearful and full of doubt  in face of this apparent massive, papal U-turn it would seem prudent that we yet again follow Para Handy’s sage advice: Let us pause and consider.

Is it at all likely that this could be true?

Fortunately, all we need do is turn to Archbishop Leo’s words as the Mass of Episcopal Consecration drew to its close on Saturday. Because he worked so closely with Pope Francis, Mgr Leo had been granted the unusual privilege for a newly appointed bishop or archbishop to be called in for a chat with His Holiness. He recalled: “One of the things he communicated then and in the coming days — Mgr Leo routinely saw him in the course of his normal duties (HMcL) — was the idea that I should be merciful in my ministry here.

“Merciful.  This has already become a key word in his pontificate, and it’s an idea that comes to him from the Gospels but filtered through his thinking about a quotation that he likes from the Venerable Bede, the famous English historian. The Pope told me to look up the Office of Readings for the day and to find his motto, the words “miserando atque eligendo”, where Christ mercifully looks upon Matthew and chooses him.

“But he explained that being merciful doesn’t mean being soft. It means being gentle but also firm at the same time. This is what the Pope asked me to be for all of you. It is also Pope Francis’s proposal for the way we priests ought to be with each other: firmly resolved to be merciful, to forgive, to be humble, to re-build, to dialogue.

“The Holy Father proposed this in his own gentle and fraternal way, but also with the strength of loving conviction and experience.”

It is worth, I think, pointing out that Pope Francis when he was Cardinal Archbishop of Buenos Aires was loath to grant interviews with the Press. It may well be either he knew of, or, had learned from those who knew of, the fact that in February of 1959, Good Pope John released for publication part of the text of a speech that Pope Pius XI had intended to deliver to his cardinals twenty years earlier, on 11 February 1939, the day after he died. It read in part:

“You know how badly the Pope’s words are treated. People read our allocutions or addresses — not only in Italy — in order to falsify their meaning, sometimes inventing altogether and attributing to us the most utter nonsense and absurdities. Recent and past history are so perverted in a certain press that it is said that there is no persecution in Germany, and this denial is accompanied by false and calumnious allegations of mixing in politics, just as Nero’s persecution used the charge of setting fire to Rome.

“Take care, dearest brothers in Christ, and never forget that there are observers and tale-bearers (call them “spies” and you will be nearer the truth) who will listen to you in order to denounce you, having understood nothing of the matter in hand or got it all wrong. They have in their favour – one must remember how Our Lord thought of His executioners – only the good sovereign excuse of ignorance.”

This, according to some controversial, interview granted by Pope Francis was conducted by Fr Antonio Spadaro SJ, editor in chief of La Civiltà Cattolica on behalf of several Jesuit journals from across the world. As always, Jorge Mario Bergoglio was paying his debts. As Pope, canonically he is no longer “SJ” but at heart he is.

And that word “canonically” and that word “heart” lead us directly to the pastoral, evangelical impulse behind Papa Bergoglio’s advice to Archbishop Leo (as revealed at his consecration/induction) and to the Catholic Church more generally (as revealed in his interview).

One of the great teachers of Canon Law in the Twentieth Century at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome was Servant of God Fr Felice Maria Cappello SJ, Confessor and Canonist. Professor at the Greg 1920-1959, he daily heard the confessions of brother Jesuits, secular priests, bishops, archbishops and cardinals as well as of the laity of all walks of life at the nearby Church of Saint Ignatius until shortly before his death on March 25, 1962.

Dr Edward Peters, a lay American canon lawyer, has asked the followers of his Blog to invoke Fr Cappello’s intercession for the recovery of his son, Thomas Peters, who was recently very seriously injured in a swimming accident. He makes note of the good confessor’s advice to the student priests whom he taught: “Principles are principles, and they remain firm and are always to be defended. But all consciences are not the same. In applying principles to consciences, we must do it with great prudence, much common sense, and much goodness. In your opinions and decisions never be severe. The Lord does not want that. Be always just, but never severe. Give the solution that offers the soul some room in which to breathe.”

Never be severe, always be merciful! Exactly what Pope Francis has said to Archbishop Leo and to his brother bishops and fellow priests is, then, really nothing new. Indeed, William Shakespeare said it long ago in The Merchant of Venice (Act IV, Scene1):

The quality of mercy is not strained
It droppeth as the gentle rain from Heaven
Upon the place beneath
It is twice blessed:
It blesseth him that gives and him that receives.

If you take the time and go to the trouble of reading Pope Francis’s interview, this is the key to understanding what he is all about: be merciful. Or, since there is nothing new under the Roman sun, as Cardinal Winning always put it: Hate the sin; but love the sinner! 

Consistory, February 22, 2014, Feast of the Chair of Peter

$
0
0
Today, there are 109 Cardinal Electors. By February 22, 2014, Feast of the Chair of Peter, and on the occasion of Pope Francis’s first consistory for the creation of new cardinals, there will be, barring the intervention of the Grim Reaper, 106. Joachim Cardinal Meisner, still Archbishop of Cologne, will be 80 on Christmas Day. Raúl Eduardo Cardinal Vela Chiriboga, Archbishop Emeritus of Quito, will follow suit on New Year’s Day. Giovanni Battista Cardinal Re, Prefect Emeritus of the Congregation for Bishops, loses his rights as a Cardinal Elector on January 30. It will be remembered that Cardinal Re as Cardinal-Bishop of Sabina-Poggio Mirteto and senior Cardinal Bishop present at the recent conclave, acted as Pro-Dean and so had the responsibility of asking His Eminence Jorge Mario Cardinal Bergoglio SJ if he accepted his canonically valid election.

Thus under the rules currently in force, Pope Francis will have 14 red birettas to confer on new Cardinal Electors.

Unless Pope Francis decides otherwise, there are 21 positions within the Roman Curia and related institutions which are reserved to cardinals or to archbishops who will be created cardinal at the first opportunity (although Pope Benedict himself ignored this at his mini-consistory of last November when he did not create cardinal Archbishops Müller and Bruguès). These are:

The Secretary of the Secretariat of State;

The Prefects of the nine Congregations;

The heads of two of the three Tribunals, the Major Penitentiary of the Apostolic Penitentiary and the Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura;

The Presidents of the: Administration of the Patrimony of the Holy See; Prefecture of the Economic Affairs of the Holy See; the Governatorate of Vatican City State, who is also President of the Pontifical Commission for Vatican City State;

The Librarian of the Vatican Library and Archivist of the Vatican Secret Archives (now a combined post);

The Grand Master of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre, and;

The Archpriests of the Four Patriarchal Basilicas: St John Lateran (which Archpriest is also the Pope’s Cardinal Vicar General for the Diocese of Rome); St Mary Major; St Paul’s Outside the Walls, and; St Peter’s.

Before speculating on who will be on the list we must also remember that Pope Benedict adopted the attitude that in general a prelate appointed to a position which traditionally merited the award of a Red Hat would have to wait until the person he succeeded ceased by reason of age or demise to enjoy the rights of a Cardinal Elector. But it must also be borne in mind that this was his policy, it is nowhere enshrined in canon law. Benedict himself applied it inconsistently in the metropolitan archdioceses and he did not apply it where the major departments of the Roman Curia were concerned (see the appointments of Archbishops:Fernando Filoni, Oriental Churches, 2007; Angelo Amato, Causes of Saints, 2008;  Joã Bráz de Aviz, Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, 2011;Fernando Filoni,Evangelization of Peoples, 2011). Only time, and it may be a short time, will tell how Pope Francis intends to proceed.

Since the first consistory of the new millennium, that of February 21, 2001, it has been the practice that when a list of cardinals-designate is issued, at the top of the list are named those prelates destined for service in the Roman Curia. To be named Number 1 on the list is a signal honour. To that prelate falls the privilege of addressing the Holy Father in behalf of all the new cardinals at the public consistory, nowadays invariably in St Peter's. On this occasion, Number 1 on the list will be Archbishop Pietro Parolin, Pro-Secretary of State (although they seem not to have officially adopted this correct designation in the Vatican) since October 15. This is a rare occurrence. I am aware of it having happened only twice before (if we ignore Domenico Tardini whose nomination was announced on the eve of Good Pope John's first consistory in 1958; also Cardinal Tardini was not named as Number 1, that honour went to Cardinal Montini, a personal friend of Good Pope John as well as being a former sostituto, which outranks a former equivalent to the present day Secretary for Relations with States).

In July of 1903, as Pope Leo XIII lay dying, Mgr Volpini, Secretary of the Sacred College of Cardinals and who should therefore have acted as Secretary at the upcoming conclave, suddenly died. The Anglo-Spanish Archbishop Rafael Merry del Val, President of the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy, was elected by the cardinals to act as Secretary to the Conclave. Such was the favourable impression that Pope Pius X formed of him that he asked him to act in an interim capacity, in effect as Pro-Secretary of State without seemingly appointing him formally as such. He headed the list of two at Pope Pius's first consistory, on November 9, 1903 (the other was Giuseppe Callegari, Bishop of Padua).

Archbishop Angelo Sodano, Secretary for Relations with States, was named Pro-Secretary of State on December 1, 1990. He was created cardinal on June 28, 1991, and was confirmed as Cardinal Secretary of State on the following day.

Obviously, there is no way of knowing how the work of the Papal G8 will affect the way in which Red Hats are distributed within the Roman Curia in the future,  but it is doubtful if it will impinge on this first Franciscan consistory. What may affect the numbers, if not the names, of those honoured at this is the fact that 36 of the 106 Cardinal Electors who will gather round His Holiness in February are cardinals in curia, 9 of them Emeriti heads of dicasteries, 6 of whom will cease to be Cardinal Electors before the end of 2014.

So who will definitely be joining Archbishop Parolin? Three current prelates of the Roman Curia, under the current rules and custom and practice, are certainties. They are:

Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller (65, birthday on Hogmanay; German) appointed on July 2, 2012, by Papa Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, President of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”, of the International Theological Commission, and of the Pontifical Biblical Commission. Pope Francis has already confirmed him in place and demonstrated his great confidence in him by having him write an 8,000 plus word article for L’Osservatore Romano explaining the Catholic Church’s position on the divorced and remarried, with especial reference to the teaching in relation to admission to the Eucharist.

Archbishop Beniamino Stella (72), Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy. Appointed by Pope Francis, he was formerly an Apostolic Nuncio and most recently served as President of the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy, the Academia.

Archbishop Jean-Louis Bruguès OP (70 on November 22 ), Archivist of the Vatican Secret Archives and Librarian of the Vatican Library. He was appointed on June 26, 2012, by Papa Ratzinger. (Going back to 1700, only 4 prelates appointed to head the Secret Archives were not yet Cardinals. All were created Cardinal at the next consistory.)

In addition, they will be joined by Archbishop Lorenzzo Baldisseri (73), Secretary General of the Synod of Bishops. By placing his own now discarded red zucchetto (skullcap) upon Mgr Baldisseri’s head as he knelt to pay homage towards the end of the conclave, to which the good Monsignor had acted as Secretary, Pope Francis indicated his intention to create him cardinal at his first consistory. That His Holiness had not had second thoughts — there was some talk afterwards that he hadn’t fully appreciated what he had done — was reinforced not so much when he appointed him as Secretary General of the Synod of Bishops, but more when he appointed him in such a way as to emphasise that the Synod was to become core to the way he intended to govern the Universal Church.

One other prelate must be rated almost definitely certain to join them. Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia (68) has been President of the Pontifical Council for the Family since June 26, 2012. That Pope Francis has chosen “The Pastoral Challenges of the Family in the Context of Evangelization” as the theme for the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops next year would strongly suggest that Mgr Paglia will be on the list.

(Two other heads of second tier dicasteries would in theory have a chance of being elevated but at the moment must be rated doubtful. These are, firstly, Archbishop Zygmunt Zimowski (64, Polish), President of the Pontifical Council for Pastoral Assistance to Health Care Workers since April 18, 2009, and, secondly, Archbishop Salvatore Fisichella (62), President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization since June 30, 2010. The latter is the more problematic. It would seem to me logical that especially bearing in mind what is said above in relation to Archbishop Paglia, the Papal G8 must be considering merging the Council for New Evangelization with that for the Family and erecting the joint body as a new Congregation.)

But who will join them from the particular Churches? Absolute certainty would seem to be possible in only two cases, both Latin American.

Archbishop Mario Aurelio Poli (66 on November 29) was appointed as his own successor in Buenos Aires by Pope Francis.

Mgr Orani João Tempesta (63), the Cistercian Archbishop of São Sebastião do Rio de Janeiro was appointed by Papa Ratzinger on February 27, 2009, and three consistories have come and gone without his having been elevated because his predecessor, Eusébio Oscar Cardinal Scheid, was still a Cardinal Elector. (Although why he was not elevated at the mini-consistory in November last is a puzzle as Cardinal Scheid was to celebrate his 80thbirthday a mere fortnight after it was held.)

After this it can only be guesswork. Of what degree or quality of inspiration is anyone's guess. There can be little doubt that Pope Francis intends to tackle the imbalance in the Sacred College. But how and when?

In Italy, two of the nine Red Hat Sees are currently headed by an Archbishop. Mgr Cesare Nosiglia (69) was appointed Archbishop of Turin on October 11, 2010, and has also been excluded from three consistories under Papa Ratzinger’s policy on succession. However, his predecessor, Severino Cardinal Poletto, turned 80 on March 18 last.

Archbishop Francesco Moraglia was appointed Patriarch of Venice on January 31, 2012, afterAngelo Cardinal Scola was translated to Milan (June 28, 2011).

I personally cannot see Pope Francis omitting these two prelates, especially the latter (apart from anything else, three 20th Century Popes were elected from Venice: Pius X, John XXIII and John Paul I). His Holiness may be Argentinian but he is also an ethnic Italian. And Italy, and not just Rome, is still of immense importance to the church: culturally, spiritually and symbolically. Any Italian emigrant will tell you so!

I will return to this after suitable further cogitation. And maybe a pie and pint for lunch.













Cardinal distribution by Country

$
0
0
Barring the intervention of the Grim Reaper, the following is based on how the College of Cardinal Electors will look on the eve of the consistory in February.

Note is given of cardinals in a country who have passed the 79 year mark. If they are an “Ordinary” the successor is given IF he is not yet a cardinal; see for example below: Cardinal Tettamanzi was replaced by Cardinal Scola.

If a prelate is thought likely to be elevated at the First Franciscan Consistory, his name is highlighted in red; if he might be elevated but there is a doubt, then green is used

Western Europe (45 Electors/45 non-Electors)

ITALY: 25 Electors; 22 non-Electors
Archbishop Cesare Nosiglia (69) was appointed to Turin on October 11, 2010, in succession to Severino Cardinal Poletto who turned 80 on March 18.
Archbishop Francesco Moraglia (60) was appointed Patriarch of Venice on January 31, 2010, when Cardinal Scola was translated to Milan.
(Note: These appointments would only temporarily increase the Italian presence in the College of Cardinal Electors: Cardinal Tettamanzi will be 80 on March 14, 2014: Emeritus, Milan.
Cardinal Sardi will be 80 on September 1, 2014: Emeritus, Curia, Vice-Chamberlain.)

SPAIN: 5 Electors; 5 non-Electors

Cardinal Amigo Vallejo OFM will be 80 on August 23, 2014: Emeritus, Seville.
Juan José Asenjo Pelegrina (68), was appointed Coadjutor on November 13, 2008, and succeeded on November 5, 2009.
(Only two Archbishops of Seville were not created cardinal. Both died shortly after appointment: Archbishop Salvador Castellote y Pinazo was appointed on December 6, 1906, and died just over a fortnight later, on December 23 in his 61styear; Archbishop Bienvenido Monzón y Martín was appointed on March 27, 1885 and died just under five months later, on August 10 in his 65th year.)

GERMANY: 4 Electors; 5 non-Electors
NOTE: One of the non-Electors is Joachim Cardinal Meisner, 80 on Christmas Day (coming, that is 2013). He is still active as Metropolitan Archbishop of Cologne, which is most definitely a “Red Hat” See. So when his successor IS named, he will come into the reckoning.
Cardinal Cordes wll be 80 on September 5: Emeritus, Curia (“Cor Unum”)

FRANCE 4 Electors; 4 non-Electors

SWITZERLAND: 1 Elector; 3 non-Electors

PORTUGAL: 2 Elector; 1 non-Elector
NOTE: Patriarch Manuel José Macário do Nascimento Clemente (65) was appointed Patriarch of Lisbon on May 18, 2013. Patriarch José da Cruz Cardinal Policarpo will not be 80 until February 26, 2016.

IRELAND: 1 Elector; 1 non-Electors

NETHERLANDS: 1 Elector; 1 non-Elector

GREAT BRITAIN: 1 Elector; 1 non-Elector
NOTE: the Elector is Keith Patrick Cardinal O’Brien who was 75 on March 17 this year. There is some question as to whether he will resign the cardinalate at the next consistory.
Vincent Gerard Nichols (67) was appointed Archbishop of Westminster on April 3, 2009, in succession to Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor who turned 80 on August 24, 2012. Whilst it is likely that he would never have received a Red Hat under Benedict, it is unlikkely that Pope Francis willbe as severe in his judgement, although Cardinal Ouelett is unlikely to have changed his views. (Cardinal Ouelett, as Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, is required to brief the Pope BUT the choices are entirely a matter for the Pope. So, if, for example, Cardinal Ouelett says that historically the Metrpolitan Archbishop of Westminster is created cardinal at the first opportunity but your predecessor held this view..." Pope Francis could say "well I don't."

AUSTRIA: 1 Elector

BELGIUM: 1 non-Elector
André-Joseph Léonard (73), Military Ordinary of Belgium was translated on February 27, 2010, as Archbishop and Metropolitan to Mechelen–Brussel in succession to Cardinal Godfried Danneels who turned 80 on June 4, last.

MALTA: 1 non-Elector
(Note: Prosper Cardinal Grech OSA (87) gave the final exhortation at the conclave in March. This was the first ever to be published.)

Eastern Europe (10/10)

POLAND: 4 Electors; 2 non-Electors
NOTE: Mgr Józef Kowalczyk (75), Archbishop of Gniezno, is a distinguished former Apostolic Nuncio. Gniezno is the historic Primatial See of Poland but I cannot see His Excellency being considered.

CZECH REPUBLIC: 1 Elector; 1 non-Elector

HUNGARY: 1 Elector; 1 non-Elector

SLOVAKIA: 2 non-Electors

UKRAINE: 2 non-Electors
NB:
(1) The Greek Catholic Church of the Ukraine is by far and away the largest of the Eastern Rite Churches in full communion with Rome. Many believe that it is long past time it should have been created a Patriarchate.
(2) Major Archbishop Sviatoslav Shevchuk (43) was elected to Kyiv–Halyč of the Ukrainians on 23 March, 2011, and this was confirmed by Pope Benedict XVI two days later, March 25, 2011 and upon receipt of that confirmation assumed office as Metropolitan Archbishop of Kyiv (Kiev) of the Ukraines. Born on May 5, 1970, as I write (November 3, 2013) is only 43 years old. His predecessor having attained his 80th birthday on February 26 last he SHOULD be considered a certainty for inclusion in the forthcoming list of new cardinals. But will his age be held against him?

BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA: 1 Elector

CROATIA: 1 Elector

LITHUANIA: 1 Elector

SLOVENIA: 1 Elector

ROMANIA: 1 non-Elector

North America (16/10)

CANADA: 3 Electors
Note: Montreal first became a Red Hat See with Paul-Émile Cardinal Léger’s elevation in 1953, three years after his appointment. But, his successor,Jean-Claude Cardinal Turcotte, waited 20 years for his cardinal’s hat. And his successor, being passed over in one consistory. So it is by no means certain that Archbishop Christian Lépine (62), appointed and installed on March 20, 2012, will be created cardinal at this consistory.

UNITED STATES: 11 Electors; 8 non-Electors
Baltimore:Archbishop William Edward Lori (62) appointed March 20, 2012, in succession to Edwin Frederick Cardinal O’Brien (74) who was appointed Grand Master of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem (August 29, 2011, as Pro-Grand). Cardinal O’Brien had been appointed in succession to William Henry Cardinal Keeler, now aged 82 years.

Detroit: First became a Red Hat See with Edward Aloysius Cardinal Mooney’s elevation in 1946, nine years after his appointment.Archbishop Allen Henry Vigneron (65) was appointed on January 5, 2009 on the retiral of Adam Joseph Cardinal Maida. Mgr Vigneron has been passed over at four consistories since Cardinal Maida turned 80.  

Los Angeles: Archbishop José Horacio Gómez Velasco (62 on Boxing Day) succeeded on March 1, 2011 and has been passed over in 2 consistories under the Benedictine policy. Cardinal Mahony will remain an elector until February 27, 2016. However, Los Angeles is the biggest (arch)diocese in the USA AND it has a massive Latino population and that population nationally is grossly underrepresented in the hierarchy and in the Sacred College.
Philadelphia:Archbishop Charles Joseph Chaput, OFM Cap (69) was appointed on July 19, 2011, to succeed Justin Francis Cardinal Rigali. His Eminence will be 80 on April 19, 2015.

MEXICO: 2 Electors; 2 non-Electors
NB: Mexico has 18 Metropolitan Archbishops.

Central America (3/1)

CUBA: 1 Elector

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: 1 Elector

HONDURAS:1 Elector

NICARAGUA:1 non-Elector

South America (9/12)

BRAZIL: 4 Electors; 5 non-Electors
NB: Brazil has 44 Metropolitan Archdioceses
São Salvador da Bahia first became a Red Hat See with Augusto Álvaro Cardinal da Silva’s elevation in 1953. Thereafter, the new Archbishop has been created cardinal at the first opportunity. Archbishop Murilo Sebastião Ramos Krieger (70) was appointed January 12, 2011, in succession to Geraldo Majella Cardinal Agnelo who has just turned 80, on October 19.
São Sebastião do Rio de Janeiro first became a Red Hay See with Joaquim Cardinal Arcoverde de Albuquerque Cavalcanti’s elevation in 1905, eight years after his appointment. The Cistercian, Archbishop Orani João Tempesta (63), was appointed on February 27, 2009, in succession to Eusébio Oscar Cardinal Scheid who turned 80 on December 8 last.
Belo HorizonteL last two Archbishops created cardinal. Archbishop Walmor Oliveira de Azevedo (59) was appointed on January 28, 2004, in succession to Serafim Cardinal Fernandes de Araújo, now 89.
Brasilia: Last two Archbishops were created, though not immediately, cardinal.Archbishop Sérgio da Rocha (54) was appointed on August 6, 2011.


ARGENTINA: 1 Elector; 2 non-Electors
NB: Argentina has 13 Metropolitan Archbishops.

COLOMBIA: 1 Electors; 2 non-Electors

CHILE: 0 Electros; 2 non-Electors
Archbishop Ricardo Ezzati Andrello (72 on January 7) was appointed Archbishop of Santiago de Chile on December 15, 2010. His predecessor, Francisco Javier Cardinal Errázuriz Ossa, P. Schönstatt, a member of the Council of Cardinals, turned 80 on April 13 last.

BOLIVIA: 1Elector

ECUADOR:1non-Elector
Fausto Gabriel Trávez Trávez (72) was appointed Archbishop of Quito on March 11, 2010, in succession to Raúl Eduardo Cardinal Vela Chiriboga who will be 80 on New Year’s Day.
PERU:1 Elector

VENEZUELA:1 Elector

South and East Asia (10/6)

INDIA: 5 Electors; 1 non-Elector

PHILIPPINES:1Electors; 2 non-Electors
NB: The Philippines has 16 Metropolitan Archbishops.
Cebu: Archbishop Jose Serofia Palma (61) appointed October 15, 2010, in succession to Ricardo Jamin Cardinal Vidal who will be 83 by the time of the consistory. 

HONG KONG: 1Electors; 1 non-Elector

INDONESIA: 1Elector

SRI LANKA: 1Elector

VIET NAM: 1Elector

SOUTH KOREA: 1 non-Elector

SRI LANKA: 1 non-Elector

Central and South West Asia (1/2)

LEBANON: 1Elector; 1 non-Elector

IRAQ: 1 non-Elector

Oceania (1/3)

AUSTRALIA:  1 Eector; 2 non-Electors
NEW ZEALAND: 1 non-Elector
Last three Archbishops have been elevated. Archbishop John Atcherley Dew (65) succeeded on March 21, 2005.

Western and Northern Africa (6/2)

NIGERIA: 2 Electors; 1 non-Elector

EGYPT: 1 Elector

GHANA: 1 Elector

GUINEA: 1 Elector

SENEGAL: 1 Elector

CAPE d’IVOIRES: 1 non-Elector

Eastern and Central Africa (4/2)

CONGO (DEM REP): 1 Elector

KENYA: 1 Elector

SUDAN: 1 Elector

TANZANIA: 1 Elector

CAMEROON: 1 non-Elector

UGANDA: 1 non-Elector

Southern Africa (1/2)

SOUTH AFRICA: 1 Elector

ANGOLA: 1 non-Elector

MOZAMBIQUE: 1 non-Elector

The Tories and Orangeism

$
0
0
Thanks to the kindness of a friend, I have been able to retrieve many notes locked in old floppy disks. I shall publish some of them as I manage to render them into a readable form.

St Bernard once said of the Church “ante et retro oculata”: she looks back in order that she can see her way forward. If that is good enough for our Church, it is surely good enough for us. However, we must remember that it is never advisable to live in the past, though equally it is foolish not to learn from it.  So what does the past teach us about Parliamentary democracy?

On Parnell’s election to Westminster as Home Rule MP for Meath at the by-election in April of 1875 following the death of John Martin, Secretary of the Home Rule League, there were 59 MPs in the Irish Parliamentary Party, under the Chairmanship of Isaac Butt, committed to campaign for Home Rule. Although they were pledged to vote for Home Rule “issues” en masse, on other matters they could vote as their consciences dictated.

From the General Election of 1880 until the outbreak of the First World War in August 1914, there were between 80 and 86 Irish Nationalists sitting as the Irish Parliamentary Party in the House of Commons at Westminster. Though at times riven by internal frictions, they always comfortably retained in excess of three-quarters of the Irish seats. In addition, from 1885 the Scotland Division of Liverpool was represented by an Irish Nationalist, T P O’Connor.

Although the Conservative Party in Randolph Churchill’s memorable phrase “played the Orange card” in 1886, many of the early Irish Home Rulers were in fact Tories. On May 3, 1911 as Asquith was introducing the third Irish Home Rule Bill, The Times published a Letter to the Editor from Sir Henry Bellingham of Castle Bellingham, Co Louth. Under the heading “Conservative Home Rulers”, it read:


Sir,
The present leader of the Conservative Party, and also, I regret to say, other Conservatives in high positions, have recently endeavoured not only to identify the whole party with the extreme Ulster section, but to let it be thought that as a party they never had anything to do with Home Rule. Will you therefore allow me to remind your readers that Home Rule was started by a Conservative, and that for many years Conservatives sat as Home Rulers?

In the year 1880, when I stood as an avowed Home Ruler for this county of Louth, I received the support both of the Carlton Club and the Conservative Whip. Further, during the time I was in Parliament (1880-86) I was regularly summoned to the meetings of the Conservative Party, and I have letters in my possession from some of the Conservative leaders which are complete evidence of complicity with Home Rule.
I am etc.

Lord Randolph Henry Spencer-Churchill, third son of John Winston Spencer Churchill, 7th Duke of Marlborough, and Frances, eldest daughter of the third Marquess of Londonderry, acted as secretary to his father when he served as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, 1877-80. He made many friends in Dublin and adopted many of the causes of Dublin Toryism. Through his mother’s Famine Relief Fund, established in 1879, he became aware of, and sympathised with, the miserable conditions in which the peasantry in the west of Ireland lived.

Not only did he advocate conciliation as the best way forward for Unionism, he cultivated relations with leading Parnellites and even attended Parnell’s trial in January, 1881, sitting near him. In 1884 he advocated extending the Irish franchise, and in 1885 was instrumental in securing the entente between the Irish Parliamentary Party and the Tories which enabled the latter to form the Government. The Tories then allowed Parnell to raise the Maamtrasna affair on the floor of the House.

Such is the nature of Parliamentary democracy that when Gladstone won the beauty contest with the Irish Parliamentary Party in 1886, Churchill had no hesitation in ditching his former principles and embracing Orangeism without any trace of embarrassment whatsoever. Indeed, to this day the Tories are still happily and unashamedly in bed with the Orangemen as was witnessed every time Andrew Mackay MP, their former Irish Affairs Spokesman, opened his mouth.

Even the Tories in the last Labour Government were quite happy to advocate the Orange cause. Hardly surprising really when you think that Harold Wilson by his inaction when confronted in Parliament with the fears of the Nationalist community, at least from the time of Gerry Fitt’s taking up of his seat in the Spring of 1966, was personally responsible for the outbreak of widespread loyalist violence against the Catholic/Nationalist/Republican community in the late 1960s and early 1970s. (Sadly, of course, Fitt later apostasised, took the King's shilling and entered the House of Lords, greatly to his own advantage.)

The Glasgow Herald: Then as Now

$
0
0
Thanks to the kindness of a friend, I have been able to retrieve many notes locked in old floppy disks. I shall publish some of them as I manage to render them into a readable form.

The (Glasgow) Herald of November 25, 1998, devoted a whole page to the Good Friday Agreement, but succeeded only in leaving their readers none the wiser. I noted at the time (though, of course, The Herald did not publish my observations) that one of their contributors, Russell Edmunds, purported to examine the decommissioning issue, but failed to explain why the IRA had so far insisted that abandoning its weapons was most definitely not an option at that time. I rather feared that the reason he did not do so was because it would have meant exposing the conduct of the RUC and the security forces to close and embarrassing public scrutiny.

Graham Walker claimed to analyse the contributions of various British Prime Ministers to the “Irish problem”, but in the event only managed to raise questions as to what was the nature of the history he as Reader of History at Queen’s College, Belfast, was supposed to be teaching since there was scant evidence that it could possibly be Irish: modern or recent.

Security may have been the pretext for the legislative union, but greed was the subtext. Peel may very well in normal circumstances have been a devout adherent of laissez-faire economics, but in relation to Ireland and the possibility of famine he was a wise and prudent interventionist. It was Lord John Russell’s slavish adherence to laissez-faire economics which doomed Ireland’s Catholic peasantry. That peasantry were already at the very edge of the abyss before Russell succeeded Peel and it is therefore nonsense for Walker to suggest that the famine suddenly occurred, scuppering Russell’s Irish policy. Potato blight was first reported in Ireland on September 9, 1845; repeal of the Corn Laws was enacted on June 26, 1846. The blight in the new potato crop was first reported in Freeman’s Journal on June 27, 1846, the day of Parnell’s birth; Peel was replaced by Russell on June 30, 1846.

However, my main criticism of this coverage revolved around Graham Walker’s bland assertion that “…when the north erupted, the then Labour Government under Harold Wilson was bewildered about what to do.” Seemingly it had never occurred to Graham Walker that Harold Wilson was the one person who could have, if he had so wished, faced up to the looming crisis in 1966 and thus averted the thirty two years of madness, badness, mayhem and murder which ensued.

At the General Election in 1966, Gerry (later Lord, such was the degree of his apostasy) Fitt was returned from Belfast West to Westminster. He rose to make his maiden speech at 7pm on Monday, April 25, 1966. Early in his speech he said “I believe… I will be able to appeal to every reasonable Member of this Chamber, and, through them, to every reasonable member of the British public.”

Harold Wilson conspired with the Speaker to ensure that that was never allowed to happen. Even as late in the day as July 11, 1968, at Prime Minister’s Questions, Fitt tried to bring matters up on the floor of the House which if dealt with then and there by Her Majesty’s Government and Parliament under their rights of sovereignty as enshrined in the Government of Ireland Act (1920), Section 75, would in all probability have avoided that madness, badness, mayhem and murder.


Wilson claimed to have problems with the West Lothian Question, long before Enoch Powell gave it a name and Tam Dalyell (falsely) claimed it for his own.

Synod of Bishops Upgraded

$
0
0
One of the very first things Pope Francis did, mere moments after his election, something which, encouraged by one of his fellow Latin American cardinals, he did instinctively or intuitively or whatever but most assuredly without having thought the consequences through, that is without discernment, has, in the sober light of day, proved to be crucially important.

When he returned to the Sistine Chapel from the Room of Tears and received the homage of the cardinal electors, he then received the homage of the Secretary of the Conclave, the Master of the Papal Liturgical Ceremonies and the two Assistant Masters of Ceremonies. As the Secretary, Archbishop Lorenzo Baldisseri, knelt, Pope Francis placed on his head the scarlet cardinal’s zucchetto of which, naturally, he had no further use. Thus the new Pope indicated his intention, according to an ancient tradition not always followed in modern times, to reward the Secretary of the Conclave with the Sacred Roman Purple at the first opportunity.

It must be remembered, of course, that Mgr Baldisseri was not a stranger to His Holiness. His Excellency was Nuncio in Haiti and Paraguay 1992-99 and in Brazil 2002-12 and they would have often met at CELAM (Consejo Episcopal Latinoamericano) the Latin American Episcopal Council. (In between times he had been Nuncio to India and Nepal.) Moreover, Mgr Baldisseri was a classmate and friend at the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy (Academia Class of ’71) of one of the few men in the Roman Curia whom the Pope knew extremely well, because he was one of his priests before his election as Pope, Leonardo Cardinal Sandri, Prefect of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches (the 22 Eastern Rite Churches in full communion with Rome). Like the Pope, Cardinal Sandri’s parents were Italian immigrants to Buenos Aires.

When Mgr Baldisseri was recalled to Rome from Brazil in 2012 it was upon his appointment as Secretary of the Congregation for Bishops, on January 11. Two months later, on March 7, he was, as is customary, appointed Secretary of the Sacred College of Cardinals. It was in this capacity that he served the Conclave.

On the day our own Mgr Cushley was being honoured with episcopal ordination and installation as Archbishop and Metropolitan of Saint Andrews and Edinburgh at St Mary’s Cathedral in Edinburgh, September 21, back in Rome Pope Francis was making a few announcements involving some of his former colleagues in the Secretariat of State. One was entirely routine: Archbishop Miroslaw Adamczyk Apostolic Nuncio to Liberia and Gambia was also given responsibility for Sierra Leone. Another was less so but not unexpected: Cardinal Fernando Filoni, a former sostituto was confirmed as Prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples. (It was Cardinal Filoni who, as Apostolic Nuncio to Iraq, 2001-6, was the only Ambassador to remain at his post in Baghdad during the Second Gulf War.)

But the other changes involving alumni of the Academia were not so straightforward. They were all consequent upon the removal of Archbishop Nikola Eterovic from his post as Secretary General of the Synod of Bishops. Naturally, His Excellency was given an important assignment, Apostolic Nuncio to Germany. Aged 62 years, His Excellency will in all likelihood be made cardinal when in due course this present mission is concluded since now reunited Germany is again one of the most important delegations. But why remove him? His Excellency certainly had done nothing wrong, either personally or professionally.

Pope Francis had early decided that the Synod of Bishops was to be central to his Pontificate. After due deliberation, he has further decided that in consequence it has to be headed by a cardinal, or by a prelate who can be created cardinal at the first opportunity. Elevation in Archbishop Eterovic’s case would have been premature at this time. Not unmerited, simply premature. And so Pope Francis decided that the man for the job was the man he honoured mere moments after his election: Archbishop Lorenzo Baldisseri, aged 73 years.

If anyone doubted the importance Pope Francis attaches to the work of the Synod, then last week was instructive. “Pope Leaves Vatican” ceased to be front page headline news after Pope Paul VI left the Vatican and Rome for the Holy Land on January 4, 1964 (he would leave it on another ten occasions, eight of them to venture furth of Italy). But last week Pope Francis again astounded the Vaticanisti when, on both Monday and Tuesday, he left the Vatican and made his way the short distance along Via della Conciliazione (the magnificent street created by Mussolini which leads directly onto St Peter’s Square from Castel Sant’Angelo).

He was headed to the Palazzo del Bramante for meetings in the office of the secretariat of the Synod of Bishops to discuss both changes needed within the secretariat and the agenda Extraordinary Synod of Bishops called for October 5-18 next year on the theme “The Pastoral Challenges of the Family in the Context of the Evangelization.”

This was a case of Mohamet come to the mountain not because it would not come to him, but because he did not presume that it ought. (See Francis Bacon “Essays” 1625, Chapter 12.)

It is no surprise that comment on the Extraordinary Synod has focused on the vexed question of the pastoral care of the divorced and remarried, and not least their being denied Holy Communion, but another most important aspect of all this has been ignored, or, and this is more likely, missed. Pope Francis,  like his three immediate predecessors — ignoring Pope John Paul I as he died before anything concrete could be deduced of his intentions in the matter — sees reconciliation with the separated brethren of the Orthodox East as the most important, and achievable, goal of ecumenical activity.

On Saturday 18, September 2008, at early Vespers in the Sistine Chapel to celebrate the participation of Bartholomew I, Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, at the XII Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, His All Holiness said at the beginning of his remarks: “It is well known that the Orthodox Church attaches to the Synodical system fundamental ecclesiogical importance. Together with primacy, synodality constitutes the backbone of the Church’s government and organisation. As our (the Pope and his) Joint International Commission on the Theological Dialogue between our Churches expressed it in the Ravenna document, this interdependence between synodality and primacy runs through all the levels of the Church’s life: local, regional and universal. Therefore, in having today the privilege to address Your Synod our hopes are raised that the day will come when our two Churches will fully converge on the role of primacy and synodality in the Church’s life, to which our common Theological Commission is devoting its study at the present time.”

Pope John Paul II’s dream of the Church breathing with both lungs, East and West, has just come a lot closer to being realised. 

Lourdes: Diary of the apparitions in 1858 et en suivant

$
0
0
Thanks to the kindness of a friend, I have been able to retrieve many notes locked in old floppy disks. I shall publish some of them as I manage to render them into a readable form.

17 Feb: “a young girl dressed in white, holding a rosary” first appeared to Bernadette in the grotto at Massabielle.

24 Feb: “the Lady” called for penance.

25 Feb: “the Lady” asked Bernadette to dig with her hands in the ground and when she did so immediately a well sprung up and “the Lady” told Bernadette to drink from and wash in the new spring.

27 Feb: “the Lady” asked Bernadette to have a chapel built at the grotto so that the people might come there in procession.

2 March: “the Lady” repeated her request of 27 Feb.

25 Mar: On this day, the Feast of the Annunciation of Our Lord, during the 16th apparition “the Lady” told Bernadette in her own local dialect “I am the Immaculate Conception.”

3 Jun: Bernadette receives her First Holy Communion.

16 Jul: On this the Feast of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, The Blessed Virgin Mary, The Immaculate Conception, appeared to Bernadette for the last time (here on Earth).

Lourdes after the apparitions

1858: The first cures reported.

1861: The first commission held to examine claims of cures considered 100 cases and declared 15 of them miraculous.

1862: A marble statue was carved faithful to Bernadette’s description of “the Lady”. The building of a Gothic church, and not as requested a humble chapel, was begun.

1871: The first Mass was celebrated in the church.

1872: After the Franco-Prussian War had ended, pilgrims flocked to Lourdes from all parts of France.

1876: Archbishop Guibert of Paris in the presence of 100,000 pilgrims consecrated the church as a minor basilica. The Papal nuncio to France crowned the statue.

1882: A medical bureau established at Lourdes to conduct initial medical assessments of purported cures. Cases considered valid are asked to return in the following year. If a claim is subsequently still considered to be meritorious it is referred on to the International Medical Commission of Lourdes based at Paris. Appropriate cases are referred by this Commission on to a canonical commission in the patient’s home diocese. It is up to the bishop of that diocese to declare as to whether or not he is satisfied that a cure is truly miraculous. By 1959 the number of alleged cures was about 5,000 of which the church authorities have declared 58 miraculous. [Most nervous and neurological conditions are excluded from consideration. Miraculous cures have been accepted in cases of cancer, tuberculosis and blindness.]

1883: Work began on a second church with 15 chapels to cope with the huge increase in the number of pilgrims. The church was completed in 1901.

1891: Pope Leo XIII, who had had built a Lourdes Grotto in the Vatican gardens, approved an Office and Mass for Lourdes for the Province of Aud of which the Diocese of Tarbes was a part.

1907: Pope Pius X promoted the Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes for the Universal Church.

1912: The Diocese of Tarbes was renamed “Tarbes and Lourdes”. Thereafter the Bishop of Tarbes and Lourdes took up residence in Lourdes from May to October (roughly the pilgrimage “season”) each year.

1926: The second church was also consecrated a minor basilica, the Rosary Basilica.


1958: In the year of the centenary of the apparitions 6,000,000 pilgrims descended on Lourdes. Most notable among them was the Patriarch of Venice, His Eminence Angelo Cardinal Roncalli, who only a very short time later would become Pope John XXIII. Cardinal Roncalli had been sent by Pope Pius XII as Papal Legate to consecrate the crypt below the basilica of the Immaculate Conception and the underground church of Pope Pius X.

Pope Francis's Watchword: Festina Lente!

$
0
0
My Latin teacher in First Year at Our Lady’s High School, Motherwell, despaired, but something obviously stuck. Festina lente! Hasten slowly!

Juglio Iglesias, the Spanish tenor, and Shay Brennan, the Manchester-born Irish footballer of happy memory, were on a TV show hosted by Anne Diamond. When Iglesias used the word “mañana”, Diamond asked him what that word actually meant. Iglesias replied: “A job, or whatever, that might be done tomorrow, maybe the next day, or the day after that. Perhaps next week, next month, or even next year. Who cares?”

Turning to Brennan, Diamond asked him if there was an Irish equivalent to “mañana”. “No,” he replied “in Ireland we don’t have a word to describe that degree of urgency.”  

In his La Civiltà Cattolica interview, Fr Antonio Spadaro SJ asked Pope Francis: “What does it mean for a Jesuit to be Bishop of Rome?” Strictly speaking, that should in fact be “ex-Jesuit” as, under canon law, His Holiness ceased to be a Jesuit the moment he accepted election. But to take the time to simply point that out and leave it there is to hasten slowly for a wrong reason: See how clever I am!

However, we have hastened slowly for a right reason if, after having made that observation, I then go on to assure that this notwithstanding this is in essence a conversation between two senior, vastly experienced and greatly respected members of the Society of Jesus known by name to all throughout the Society. Moreover, it is a conversation recorded in interview form specifically for the attention of the readership of 16 Jesuit journals published across the world (the editors of which journals all contributed questions for Fr Spadaro to consider including in his interrogation of their man).

In other words, now before proceeding to consider what the Pope actually said in reply, we are fully aware of the context in which he said it. Pope Francis is speaking to an essentially Jesuit and Jesuit affiliate audience. These weren’t words of wisdom directed as per an encyclical to “the Bishops, Priests and Deacons, Men and Women Religious, the Lay Faithful and All People of Good Will” (to whom Pope Benedict XVI addressed his three encyclicals; Blessed Pope John Paul II had a slightly different formulation). It is not a contribution to the Magisterium. This is a message directed to a specific audience Pope Francis knows well; an audience which speaks the same language, whichever language they happen variously to read it in.

Now back to the question at hand. Although later in the interview he would admit that in his early days in a position of leadership he had been overhasty and too autocratic, the new Bishop of Rome here indicates he has realised the importance and the consequence of the application of the notion of discernment as taught by St Ignatius. Importantly, he notes: “This discernment takes time. For example, many think that changes and reforms can take place in a short time. I believe that we always need time to lay the foundations for real, effective change.And this is the time of discernment.”

There is, of course, the apparently contradicting lesson of experience. For he then adds: “Sometimes discernment instead urges us to do precisely what you had at first thought you would do later.” The garbled grammar is the responsibility of the translators commissioned by the American Jesuit Magazine “America”. It obscures, but does not completely hide, the point being made. Pope Francis is all too well aware that the time taken for discernment might appear to have been wasted — if we end up doing what we immediately thought of doing when the matter first surfaced — but it hasn’t been. For, instinct and intuition have been reinforced with dialogue based on sound reason and hence, with a degree of consensus, we can proceed with confidence.

Festina lentedoes not mean failing to procrastinate today because we can just as easily put it off until tomorrow.

In anticipation of the conclave in March, I noted: “There are many problems urgently clamouring for the new Pope’s immediate attention. The problem is that no Pope can do everything that is required of him all by himself.” Obviously, both the cardinals and Pope Francis agreed with me. One month to the day after his election, on April 13, VISNews, the official Vatican news agency, reported: “The Holy Father Francis, taking up a suggestion that emerged during the General Congregations preceding the Conclave, has established a group of cardinals to advise him in the government of the universal Church and to study a plan for revising the Apostolic Constitution on the Roman Curia, ‘Pastor Bonus’.”

Pope Francis met with this Council of Cardinal Consultors (the Papal G8) for the first time at the beginning of this month, October 1–3. His Holiness took a month to identify who he wanted to advise him and he then asked them to take about six months to rehearse, research and consult on, within their respective geographical areas, the compound problem identified by him as most urgently requiring attention.

In that same anticipation of the conclave alluded to above, it was suggested that the conclavists “must take a long view” and that the feeling was irresistible that “that long view must demand that close attention be given to one long neglected problem before all others: the central governance of the Church, the Roman Curia… if we are finally to see the proper implementation of the rightly interpreted fruits of the Second Vatican Council.”

But the priority had to be the appointment of “an effective Secretary of State” and the announcement of that came about five-and-a-half months after the election of Pope Francis, on August 31. Archbishop Pietro Parolin was due to take up his post on Tuesday, October 15, but on a visit to his family in Veneto he suffered appendicitis and had to undergo surgery. Happily, the good Archbishop was allowed home on Friday, October 25,  and will spend some time recuperating by being fussed over at home by his family before taking up the reins of power in the Secretariat.

Almost immediately after his election, on March 16, Pope Francis had announced, again according to VISNews: “Heads and members of the Dicasteries of the Roman Curia, as well as their Secretaries, and also the President of the Pontifical Commission for Vatican City State, continue ‘donec aliter provideatur’, that is, provisionally, in their respective positions.” And it also explained why. The Holy Father wished “to reserve time for reflection, prayer, and dialogue before any final appointment or confirmation is made.”

In Rome, nothing is being rushed. Festina lente reigns supreme. But that doesn’t mean nothing is being done.

Pope Francis, who in reality knew little or nothing about the actual workings, or the workers, of the Roman Curia, was going to take the time and go to the trouble of getting to know enough about both before he made any decisions about who would stay and who would go. Or, who would be transferred, and, to where.

Festina lente: both efficiency and justice demands it. But Pope Francis has not been idle.

And, funnily enough, one of the very first things he did, mere moments after his election and before he had even signed the official document of acceptance, something which, encouraged by one of his fellow Latin American cardinals, he did instinctively, or intuitively, or whatever but most assuredly without having thought the consequences through, that is without discernment, has, in the sober light of day, proved to be crucially important.

Pope Francis's First Consistory: Archbishop Baldisserri

$
0
0
When he returned to the Sistine Chapel from the Room of Tears and received the homage of the cardinal electors, the newly elected Pope Francis then received the homage of the four prelates summoned after the canonical election had been accepted: the Secretary of the Conclave, the Master of the Papal Liturgical Ceremonies and the two Assistant Masters of Ceremonies. As the Secretary, Archbishop Lorenzzo Baldisseri, knelt Pope Francis placed on his head the scarlet cardinal’s zucchetto of which, naturally, he had no further use. Thus he indicated his intention, according to an ancient tradition not always followed in modern times, to reward the Secretary with the Sacred Roman Purple at the first opportunity. (As far as I can determine the last Pope to do this was Good Pope John in 1958. The recipient of papal benefaction was Mgr Alberto di Jorio who had been Secretary of the Sacred College of Cardinals since 1947.)

It must be remembered, of course, that Mgr Baldisseri was not a stranger to His Holiness. His Excellency was Nuncio in Haiti and Paraguay 1992-99 and in Brazil 2002-12 and they would have often met at CELAM (Consejo Episcopal Latinoamericano, the Latin American Episcopal Council). (In between times he had been Nuncio to India and Nepal.)

Moreover, Mgr Baldisseri was a classmate and friend at the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy (Class of ’71) of one of the few men in the Roman Curia whom the Pope knew extremely well, Leonardo Cardinal Sandri, Prefect of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches (the 22 Eastern Rite Churches in full communion with Rome). Cardinal Sandri, like Pope Francis, is the son of Italian immigrants to Argentina; and, he is a priest of the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires.

On the day our own Mgr Cushley was being honoured with episcopal ordination and installation as Archbishop and Metropolitan of Saint Andrews and Edinburgh at St Mary’s Cathedral in Edinburgh, September 21, back in Rome Pope Francis was making a few announcements involving some of his former colleagues in the Secretariat of State.

Manuel Cardinal Monteiro de Castro (Portugal), a former Nuncio, resigned as Major Penitentiary a mere 6 months after his 75th birthday. Moreover, he had only been in office for about a year and a half. But this allowed the Pope to transfer Mauro Cardinal Piacenza out of the Congregation for the Clergy to the Apostolic Penitentiary and install Archbishop Beniamino Stella as Prefect. Mgr Stella had been President of the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy (where Cardinal Monteiro de Castro had been a classmate of our very own Mgr Basil Loftus, Academia Class of 1965).

Archbishop Nikola Eterovic was removed from his post as Secretary General of the Synod of Bishops. Naturally, His Excellency was given an important assignment, Apostolic Nuncio to Germany. Aged 62 years, His Excellency will in all likelihood be made cardinal when in due course this present mission is concluded since, now reunited, Germany is again one of the most important delegations. (And all three predecessors of Archbishop Eterovic as General Secretary were created cardinal.)

But why remove him? His Excellency certainly had done nothing wrong, either personally or professionally. Pope Francis had early decided that the Synod of Bishops was to be central to his Pontificate. After due deliberation, he has further decided that in consequence it has to be headed by a cardinal, or by a prelate who can be created cardinal at the first opportunity. Elevation in Archbishop Eterovic’s case would have been premature at this time. Not unmerited, simply premature.

And so Pope Francis decided that the man for the job was the man he honoured mere moments after his election: Archbishop Lorenzo Baldisseri, aged 73 years.

“Pope Leaves Vatican” ceased to be front page headline news after Pope Paul VI left the Vatican and Rome for the Holy Land on January 4, 1964 (he would leave it on another ten occasions, eight of them to venture furth of Italy). If anyone doubted the importance Pope Francis attaches to the work of the Synod, then what happened on Monday, October 7, was instructive. Pope Francis again astounded the Vaticanisti when he left the Vatican and made his way the short distance along Via della Conciliazione — the magnificent street created by Mussolini which leads directly onto St Peter’s Square from Castel Sant’Angelo — and headed to the Palazzo del Bramante for a meeting in the office of the secretariat of the Synod of Bishops.

He went there to discuss both changes needed within the secretariat and the agenda for the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops called for October 5-18 next year on the theme “The Pastoral Challenges of the Family in the Context of the Evangelization.” This was a case of Mohamet come to the mountain not because it would not come to him, but because he did not presume that it ought. (See Francis Bacon “Essays” published in 1625, Chapter 12.)

It is no surprise that comment on the Extraordinary Synod has focused on the vexed question of the pastoral care of the divorced and remarried, and not least their being denied Holy Communion, but another most important aspect of all this has been ignored, or, and this is more likely, missed. Pope Francis,  like his three immediate predecessors — ignoring Pope John Paul I as he died before anything concrete could be deduced of his intentions in the matter — sees reconciliation with the separated brethren of the Orthodox East as the most important, and achievable, goal of ecumenical activity.

On Saturday, September 18, 2008, at early Vespers in the Sistine Chapel to celebrate the participation of Bartholomew I, Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, at the XII Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, His All Holiness said at the beginning of his remarks: “It is well known that the Orthodox Church attaches to the Synodical system fundamental ecclesiological importance. Together with primacy, synodality constitutes the backbone of the Church’s government and organisation.

“As our (the Pope and his) Joint International Commission on the Theological Dialogue between our Churches expressed it in the Ravenna document, this interdependence between synodality and primacy runs through all the levels of the Church’s life: local, regional and universal. Therefore, in having today the privilege to address Your Synod our hopes are raised that the day will come when our two Churches will fully converge on the role of primacy and synodality in the Church’s life, to which our common Theological Commission is devoting its study at the present time.”

Pope John Paul II’s dream of the Church breathing with both lungs, East and West, has just come a lot closer to being realised. Pope Francis, by appointing Archbishop Lorenzo Baldisseri, whom he has already as the first act of his pontificate, even before it had formerly begun — he hadn’t signed the document, so he could still have changed his mind! — publicly indicated is to be made a cardinal at his first consistory has sent a clear message: the Synod is of such importance that its secretariat must become one of the dicasteries of the Roman Curia of the first rank, requiring to be headed by a cardinal, or an archbishop who will be made a cardinal at the first opportunity. Whether he formally erects it as a tenth Congregation of the Roman Rota awaits to be seen.


Cardinal Burke

$
0
0
In light of the storm in a Roman coffee cup stirred up by Pope Francis not renewing Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke's membership of the Congregation for Bishops, I thought it might be opportune to publish here a piece I wrote on him five-and-a--half years ago (May 2008). But first, some common sense.

When, shortly after Pope Francis was elected, it was announced that all superiors of the dicasteries of the Roman Curia were to continue in post donec aliter provideatur”, that is pending any future possible arrangements being made, in effect until further notice, one important point was not highlighted and only became clear when Archbishop Giovanni Angelo Becciu, sostituto (Secretary of State Substitute for General Affairs, effectively the Papal Chief of Staff) was interviewed by L’Osservatore Romano on May 1 (published May 2). The operation of the “quinquennium” had also been suspended.

Normally, appointments to positions within the Roman Curia are for a five year term (the quinquennium). This is stipulated by Article 5 §1 of Pastor Bonus: “The prefect or president, the members of the body mentioned in art. 3, § 1 (that is the dicasteries, the various departments of the Roman Curia), the secretary, and the other senior administrators, as well as the consultors, are appointed by the Supreme Pontiff for a five-year term.”

When Cardinal Burke was appointed a member of the Congregation for the Clergy it was doubtless felt that he was up to speed with who was who and what was what at home in the USA. After more than five years in Rome that quite clearly can no longer be the case. So why NOT get someone else in who DOES know what side is up?

I cannot for the life of me see any reason to regard this as some sort of purgation.

Anyway, back to what I wrote over five years ago (slightly edited).


Burke’s Law

Raymond Leo Burke did not exactly rise without trace to succeed His Eminence Justin Cardinal Rigali as Archbishop of St Louis.

His academic record alone makes him stand out from the clerical and, indeed, prelatial crowd. Majoring in Philosophy, he graduated BA and MA from the Catholic University of America (1970 and ’71 respectively); STB (Bachelor of Sacred Theology), Pontifical Gregorian University (1974); MA (Theology), Gregorian (1975); Licentiate in Canon Law (LCJ), Gregorian (1982); Diploma in Latin Letters, Gregorian (1983); Doctor of Canon Law (JCD, specialising in Jurisprudence), Gregorian (1984).

It is hardly surprising that Archbishop Burke’s only known hobby is reading!

Ordained priest in St Peter’s Basilica by one Pope ― Paul VI, on June 29, 1975 ― and bishop at the same venue by another ― John Paul II, on January 6, 1995 ― he had between times been appointed as both a visiting Professor of Canonical Jurisprudence at the Pontifical Gregorian University (1985-94) and (in 1989) the first American Defender of the Bond for the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura (he succeeded Fr William O'Connell OFM; when Cardinal Winning returned to Scotland in 1966 and became my PP at St Luke's, North Forgewood, Motherwell, it was wrongly asserted that he was the only British priest who was an Advocate of the Sacred Roman Rota; obviously Fr Willie and he made two) (Pope Benedict would later appoint the by then Archbishop Burke a Member of the College of Judges of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, in July 2006). Pope John Paul II named him a Prelate of Honour (Rt Rev Mgr) on 12 August 1993.

On November 23, 2003, the Solemnity of Christ the King, while still Bishop of La Crosse, Wisconsin, Mgr Burke issued a Notification to the clergy of his diocese in which he pointed out that he was bound to be “solicitous for all the faithful entrusted to my care” (Code of Canon Law, canon 383 §1).

His went on to explain that in conformity with the teaching contained in Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics, the document promulgated by the United States Conference of Bishops, he had “a fundamental responsibility of safeguarding and promoting the respect for human life” and, therefore, it was his duty “to explain, persuade, correct and admonish those in leadership positions who contradict the gospel of life through their actions and policies.

He reminded the clergy that His Holiness Pope John Paul II had frequently reminded us that “those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a grave and clear obligation to oppose any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them.” (Doctrinal Notes on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life [November 24,  2002, n4 §1])

The Notification then spells out the obvious: “A Catholic legislator who supports procured abortion or euthanasia, after knowing the teaching of the Church, commits a manifestly grave sin which is a cause of most serious scandal to others. Universal Church law provides that such persons are not to be admitted to Holy Communion” (CCL, canon 915).

Within his then diocese, three Catholics active in politics ― two state representatives and a congressman ― had supported anti-life legislation and had ignored their bishop’s request for them to call on him and discuss the matter. Renewing his call for these Catholic legislators to “uphold the natural and divine law regarding the inviolable dignity of all human life”, Archbishop Burke reminded them again that to fail to do so “is a grave public sin and gives scandal to all the faithful” and he formally cautioned them that if they continued to support procured abortion or euthanasia then they “may not present themselves to receive Holy Communion.”

He then went further than any other member of the American hierarchy had previously done and instructed his clergy that if these legislators did present themselves for Holy Communion “they are not to be admitted…until such time as they publicly renounce their support of these most unjust practices.”

This created a sensation not merely in Wisconsin, and not solely within the Catholic Church, but throughout North America and, indeed, around the world. That sensation as well as spreading among the believers of other Christian communities, also stirred adherents of different religions and of none. And it didn't solely generate opposition.

The way of La Crosse

The American Life League, which with over 370,000 members is one of the biggest pro-life groups in the States, launched a campaign to mark the 31st anniversary of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Wade-v-Roe which legalised abortion. It featured Mgr Burke’s clear and concise statement and, naturally, they called their campaign “The way of La Crosse”.

From scarcely being a household name in his own back yard, Mgr Burke soon rocketed not only onto the national, but also onto the international stage. For, no sooner had he been translated to the Archdiocese of St Louis, Missouri, than a supposedly Catholic Democratic candidate for the Presidency rolled into town. When asked by a local journalist what would happen if Senator John Kerry approached his altar rail at Communion, the newly installed archbishop could only give but one reply: “I would have to admonish him not to present himself for Communion. I might give him a blessing or something. If his archbishop has told him he should not present himself for Communion, he shouldn’t. I agree with Archbishop O’Malley.”

(Archbishop, now Cardinal, O’Malley, who had then but recently replaced Cardinal Law in Boston, had called on legislators who do not support the Gospel of Life to refrain of their own volition from presenting themselves for the Blessed Sacrament. But, of course, Archbishop Burke was going further.)

This, then, was one American Roman Catholic bishop prepared to refuse Holy Communion to a potential President of the United States of America. InsidetheVatican named him one of the top-ten People of the Year along with the likes of Mel Gibson and Dolores Hart. (“Dolores who?” You might well ask. Well, Dolores was in her younger days only the first ever actress to kiss Elvis Presley on screen. Now living the contented life of a Benedictine nun, many years later asked: “What is it like kissing Elvis?” She chuckled a bit at the memory and then said: “I think the limit for a screen kiss back then was something like 15 seconds. That one has lasted 40 years.” HT Wikipedia. )

But critics were not hard to find, especially among the ranks of the “liberal” Catholics.

William Bablitch, a former Justice of the Wisconsin State Supreme Court, was quoted as having said: “Certainly the bishop has every right to express his own views to an elected official. But to invoke the moral authority of the Church in a threatening way (!) to a legislator seems to cross over a line that has been very carefully drawn and is very well respected in this country.”

Strange might it seem to us on this older side of the Atlantic that a Catholic judge would regard as being “threatening” a Bishop advising members of his flock of the mortal danger to their souls of their own actions. Thankfully, however, two Catholic American Professors of Law also found that odd.

Robert George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Programme in American Ideals at Princeton University, and Gerard Bradley is Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame and President of the American Fellowship of Catholic Scholars. In National Review Online they defended Archbishop Burke. 

They argued that since the Democratic leaders of both houses of Congress are professed Catholics who support the so-called “woman’s right to choose”, it was about time that a member of the American hierarchy spoke out. Noting that he has been called a “fanatic” ― surprise, surprise by a Professor of Theology at a Jesuit run University ― and of having “crossed the line” (see Bablitch above), they dismissed both ideas as being absurd. They pointed out that Archbishop Burke had merely exercised his constitutional right to the free expression of his religion and that in doing so he was “not denying others of their rights. No one is compelled by law to accept his authority. But Bishop Burke has every right to exercise his spiritual authority over anyone who chooses to accept it. There is a name for such people. They are called Catholics.”

Viewing all 67 articles
Browse latest View live