Scottish Catholic Observant

New Nuncios

2012-02-03T19:38:00.000-08:00

On Friday, January 27, 2012, it was announced from Rome that three alumni of the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy, the academia, had been promoted to the ranks of the Apostolic Nuncios and were to receive episcopal ordination as archbishops.

The new appointees are Monsignori: Santo Rocco Gangemi (Class of ’90) assigned to the Solomon Islands (it is presumed that he will later also be given responsibility for Papua New Guinea); Julio Murat (Turkish, Class of ’92) assigned to Zambia (it is presumed that he will later also be given responsibility for Malawi), and; Luciano Russo (Class of ’91) whose assignment has not as yet been revealed. No date has as yet been announced for their episcopal ordinations but usually a period of about six weeks is allowed for all the necessary arrangements, not least to enable friends and family to be present in Rome for this great event in these priests’ lives. It is expected that the Cardinal Secretary of State, Tarcisio Cardinal Bertone, will be the Principal Consecrator.

In relation to Msgr Russo, in a situation like this, where the promotion has been announced but the assignment has not, it is usually the case that the Vatican has put the name forward to the host government concerned but has at the time of the announcement not as yet received their agreement but no problem is envisaged.

Currently there are another nine nunciatures awaiting an appointment (if the latest arrangements are continued), three of which involve multiple responsibilities: Denmark/Finland/Iceland/Norway/Sweden; South/Africa/Nambia/Lesotho/Swaziland/Botswana, and; the European Community/Monaco. Of the single-country nunciatures awaiting an appointment, China, Vietnam and Brazil would each probably be considered too great a responsibility for a newly promoted Nuncio. The other vacancies are in Azerbaijan, Rwanda, and Timor-Leste.

With these appointments the day has drawn much closer when our very own Mgr Leo Cushley, Head of the English Language Section of the Secretariat of State, will be called upon to serve the Holy See as a Nuncio. In general, appointments follow the chronology of the academia. These latest appointments have now reached the Class of ’92; Mgr Cushley belongs to the Class of ’94.

At the consistory on February 18, Archbishop Santos Abril y Castelló will become a cardinal. Cardinal-elect Abril is a distinguished former Nuncio. In 1985 when he was first appointed as a Nuncio (to Bolivia) and accorded the archiepiscopal dignity, he was in an equivalent position to Mgr Cushley as Head of the Spanish Language Section of the Secretariat of State.

Stormont comes to Holyrood

2012-01-24T20:41:00.000-08:00

Students of comparative law might wish to take cognisance of the following, and so might those of Irish Catholic antecedents, especially if they value them.

Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland), 1922 [12 & 13 Geo. 5. c. 5 (N.I.)]
An Act to empower certain authorities of the Government of Northern Ireland to take steps for preserving the peace and maintaining order in Northern Ireland, and for purposes connected therewith.
[7th April, 1922.]

1.
(2) For the purposes of this Act the civil authority shall be the Minister of Home Affairs for Northern Ireland, but that Minister may delegate, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as he thinks fit, all or any of his powers under this Act to any officer of police, and any such officer of police shall, to the extent of such delegation, be the civil authority as respects any part of Northern Ireland specified in such delegation

3.
(1) A person alleged to be guilty of an offence against the regulations may be tried by a court of summary jurisdiction constituted in accordance with this section, and not otherwise.

(2) An offence against the regulations shall not be prosecuted except by such officer or person as may be authorised in that behalf by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland, and in accordance with such directions as may be given by the said Attorney General.

Schedule

3.
(1) The civil authority may make orders prohibiting or restricting in any area
(a) The holding of or taking part in meetings, assemblies (in eluding fairs and markets), or processions in public places;
(b) The use or wearing or possession of uniforms or badges of a naval, military or police character, or of uniforms or badges indicating membership of any association or body specified in the order;

4. Where there appears to be reason to apprehend that the assembly of any persons for the purpose of the holding of any meeting will give rise to grave disorder, and will thereby cause undue demands to be made upon the police forces, or that the holding of any procession will conduce to a breach of the peace or will promote disaffection, it shall be lawful for the civil authority, or for any magistrate or chief officer of police who is duly authorised for the purpose by the civil. authority, or for two or more of such persons so authorised, to make an order prohibiting the holding of the meeting or procession, and if a meeting or procession is held or attempted to be held in contravention of any such prohibition, it shall be lawful to take such steps as may be necessary to disperse the meeting or procession or prevent the holding thereof ; and every person taking part in any such prohibited meeting or procession shall be guilty of an offence against these regulations.

5.
(1) The Minister of Home Affairs may, by order, declare this regulation to be in force in any area, and in any such area no person other than a member of the police forces, shall, subject to any exceptions for which provision may be made in the order, practise, take part in, or he concerned in any exercise, movement, evolution, or drill of a military nature, or be concerned in, or assist the promotion or organisation of any such exercise, movement, evolution, or drill, by persons other than members of the police forces.

16.
If any person attempts or does any act calculated or likely to cause mutiny, sedition, or disaffection in any police force or among the civilian population, or to impede delay or restrict any work necessary for the preservation of the peace or maintenance of order he shall be guilty of an offence against these regulations.

19.
Where the civil authority, or any superior officer of police, is of opinion that a meeting or assembly is being or about to be held of such a character that an offence against these regulations may he committed thereat, he may authorise in writing a police constable or other person to attend the meeting or assembly, and any police constable or person so authorised may enter the place at which the meeting or assembly is held and remain there during its continuance.
In this regulation the expression "superior officer of police -, means an officer of police of a rank superior to that of constable.
The powers given by this regulation shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any powers of the civil authority, constables, or superior officers of police.

23.
Any person authorised for the purpose by the civil authority, or any police constable, or member of any of His Majesty’s forces on duty when the occasion for the arrest arises, may arrest without warrant any person whose behaviour is of such a nature as to give reasonable grounds for suspecting that he has acted or is acting or is about to act in a manner prejudicial to the preservation of the peace or maintenance of order, or upon whom may be found any article, book, letter, or other document, the possession of which gives ground for such a suspicion, or who is suspected of having committed an offence against these regulations, or of being in possession of any article or document which is being used or intended to be used for any purpose or in any way prejudicial to the preservation of the peace or maintenance of order, and anything found on any person so arrested which there is reason to suspect is being so used or intended to be used may be seized, and the civil authority may order anything so seized to be destroyed or otherwise disposed of.

24.
(1) Any person who does any act with a view to promoting or calculated to promote the objects of an unlawful association within the meaning of section 7 of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, shall be guilty of an offence against these regulations.

(2) If any person, without lawful authority or excuse, has in his possession any document relating or purporting to relate to the affairs of any such association, or emanating or purporting to emanate from an officer of any such association, or addressed to the person as an officer or member of any such association, or indicating that he is an officer or member of any such association, that person shall be guilty of an offence against these regulations unless he proves that he did not know or had no reason to suspect that the document was of any such character as aforesaid or that he is not an officer or member of the association.

Where a person is charged with having in his possession any such document, and the document was found on premises in his occupation, or under his control, or in which he has resided, the document shall be presumed to have been in his possession unless the contrary is proved.

25.
No person shall by word of mouth or in writing, or in any newspaper, periodical, book, circular, or other printed publication —

(a) spread false reports or make false statements; or

(b) spread reports or make statements intended or likely to cause disaffection to His Majesty, or to interfere with the success of any police or other force acting for the preservation of the peace or maintenance of order in Northern Ireland;

29.
The powers conferred by these regulations are in addition to and not in derogation of any powers exerciseable by the civil authority and other persons to take such steps as may be necessary for securing the preservation of the peace or maintenance of order, and save as otherwise expressly provided by these regulations nothing in these regulations shall affect the liability of any person to trial and punishment for any offence or crime otherwise than in accordance with these regulations. Provided that no person shall be liable to be punished twice for the same offence or crime.

Flags and Emblems (Display) Act (Northern Ireland), 1954 [1954 c. 10 (N.I.).]

An Act to make provision with respect to the display of certain flags and emblems.
[6th April, 1954.]

1. Any person who prevents or threatens to interfere by force with the display of a Union flag (usually known as the Union Jack) by another person on or in any lands or premises lawfully occupied by that other person shall be guilty of an offence against this Act.

2.
(l) Where any police officer, having regard to the time or place at which and the circumstances in which any emblem is being displayed, apprehends that the display of such emblem may occasion a breach of the peace, he may require the person displaying or responsible for the display of such emblem to discontinue such display or cause it to be discontinued; and any person who refuses or fails to comply with such a requirement shall be guilty of an offence against this Act.

(2) Where:
(a) a requirement under the preceding subsection is not complied with; or
(b) the person responsible for such display is not readily available; or
(c) no person, or no person responsible for such display and capable of complying with such a requirement, is present on or in any lands or premises whereon or wherein such an emblem is being displayed;
a police officer may without warrant enter any such lands or premises, using such force as may be necessary, and may remove and seize and detain such emblem.

(4) In this section the expression “emblem” includes a flag of any kind other than the Union flag, and the expression “police officer” means an officer, head-constable or sergeant of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

The Special Powers Act was repealed under "Direct Rule" by the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973.

The Flags and Emblems Act was repealed under "Direct Rule" by the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987.

To the shame of Scotland, they were both resuscitated under devolved rule by the SNP administration at Holyrood in the guise of The Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 which was passed on 14th December 2011 and will come into effect on 1st March 2012.

Ian Paisley should live at this hour!

2012-01-24T04:12:00.000-08:00

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 States December 16, 1995 – 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, Scottish, a priest of the Diocese of Motherwell). 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) had 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 be.

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.

Academia alumni serving in the dicasteries of the Roman Curia

SECRETARIAT OF STATE

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

First Section
Archbishop Giovanni Angelo Becciu (1980/1533) Substitute for General Affairs (sostituto), (date of appointment IF still serving: May 10, 2011)

Msgr Peter Brian Wells (1996/1688; American, only given if non-Italian); Assessor for General Affairs (assessore) (July 16, 2009);
Archbishop Luciano Suriani (1986/1594) Delegate for Pontifical Representations (Sep 24, 2009) [Mgr Suriani was an academia classmate of Mgr Peter Magee, priest of the Diocese of Galloway and President of the Scottish National Tribunal.]

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

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

Msgr. Ettore Balestrero (1996/162); Undersecretary for the Relations with States (Aug 17, 2009) [Mgr Balestrero was an academia classmate of Mgr Leo Cushley, priest of the Diocese of Motherwell and Head of the English Language Section of the Secretariat of State, and hence the Pope's English Language Interpreter.]

Note: If any prelate listed here below has previously served in the Secretariat of State, a note to that effect will be given as such service is a good indicator of promotion to the very highest levels (for example, two former sostituti were elected Pope in the 20th century, Benedict XV and Paul VI).

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
Renato Cardinal 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); former Secretary for the Relations with the States (Decemebr 1, 1990-October 6, 2003). Curiously, Cardinal Tauran did not serve as an Apostolic Nuncio before his appointment as head of the Second Section of the Secretariat of State.

Archbishop Pier Luigi Celata (1965/1375); Secretary (Nov 14, 2002) [Mgr Celata was an academia classmate of Mgr Basil Loftus, retired priest of the Diocese of Leeds now serving in the Highlands of Scotland and contributing a weekly column to the Scottish Catholic Observer, to which I also contribute.]

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 available); 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 (1963/1537)(Sep 21, 1935); Archpriest of the Basilica of St Mary Major (Nov 21, 2011)

Scottish Notes

(1) 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 Pontical Oriental Institute. Fr Clarence is a native of Mossend, Bellshil and was educated at the Holy Family Primary School and Our Lady’s High School, Motherwell (my own alma mater).

(2) Archbishop Luciano Suriani (Secretariat of State) was an academia classmate (Class of 1986) of Msgr Peter Magee, President of the Scottish National Tribunal and my hope as next Archbishop of Glasgow.

(3) Cardinal-elect Manuel Monteiro de Castro (Major Penitentiary) and Archbishop Pier Luigi Celata (Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue) were academia classmates (Class of 1965) of Msgr Basil Loftus, retired priest of the Diocese of Leeds, now a contributor to the Scottish Catholic Observer (as opposed to Observant).

General Notes

(1) HE 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 academia.

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.

Reply to comment

2012-01-13T21:51:00.000-08:00

I know I should be able to add a reply to a comment other than by putting it in as a new post, but I haven't figured out how to do that yet. So Apologies to Frederick Oakley
.
"(S)o far from the truth"?

As Rabbie Burns so sagely observed in "A Dream"(1786):

"But facts are chiels that winna ding,
An downa be disputed"

His Eminence José Cardinal Saraiva Martins, C.M.F., Prefect Emeritus of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints celebrated his 80th birthday on the day of the announcement of February's consistory. Therefore, on that day, technically there were 12 vacancies in the College of Cardinal Electors. However, another cardinal, His Eminence Joseph Cardinal Zen Ze-kiun, S.D.B., Bishop Emeritus of Hong Kong, was due to celebrate his 80th birthday before the consistory, on January 13 and so the Holy Father had 13 vacancies to fill.

In fact he nominated 18 new cardinal electors. Thus, on the day of the consistory the limit of 120 will be exceeded by 5.

Pope Benedict took into account the fact that a further 5 cardinal electors will reach the age limit within five months of the consistory. These are on:

8 Mar, Rodolfo Cardinal Quezada Toruño, Archbishop Emeritus of Guatemala;
2 Apr, Edward Michael Cardinal Egan, Archbishop Emeritus of New York;
17 May, Miloslav Cardinal Vlk, Archbishop Emeritus of Prague, Czech Republic;
14 Jun, Henri Cardinal Schwery, Bishop Emeritus of Sion, Switzerland; and,
26 Jul, James Francis Cardinal Stafford, Major Penitentiary Emeritus of the Apostolic Penitentiary, USA

A further 6 cardinals celebrate that landmark birthday before the year is out. They are, on:

10 Aug, Gaudencio Borbon Cardinal Rosales, Archbishop Emeritus of Manila, Philippines
24 Aug, Cormac Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor, Archbishop Emeritus of Westminster, England
13 Sep, Pedro Cardinal Rubiano Sàenz, Archbishop Emeritus of Bogotá, Colombia
1Nov, Francis Cardinal Arinze, Prefect Emeritus of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Nigeria
23 Nov, Renato Raffaele Cardinal Martino, President Emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Italy
8 Dec, Eusébio Oscar Cardinal Scheid, S.C.I., Archbishop Emeritus of São Sebastião do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Take note especially of the two birthdays in August.

This is all factual, "the truth". What follows is opinion, but it is informed, objective opinion. I have no axe to grind in the matter.

To me it is clear that His Holiness took the view that a line had to be drawn somewhere. He wasn't prepared, as his immediate predecessor was, to simply totally ignore the limit of 120 cardinal electors first established by Pope Paul VI, one of my heroes. (Blessed Pope John Paul II on two occasions had 135 cardinal electors at the end of consistories.)

But why stop in July? Why take into account five months? Surely six months is a more rounded, sensible figure? After all by doing that, by giving himself just a little more leeway, two days short of a full calendar month -- which wouldn't be enough time for a Pope to die, the obsequies to be observed and a conclave to begin; all of which give the college of cardinal electors their raison d'etre -- Pope Benedict would have been able to nominate another two non-curial cardinals. Irrespective of who he would have chosen, he would have had an exact balance in his list between the curia and the rest of the Catholic world: 10 new cardinals from each. Exactly as was the case last time, in November 2010.

However, I think it is obvious that the Pope couldn't have availed himself of the facility to name two more cardinals and NOT have appointed Archbishops Tagle and Nichols. And for a very good reason: they are the metropolitans of the two most important (and, in the former case, largest) red hat sees not yet cardinals and whose predecessors would have attained that landmark birthday within the leeway.

Obviously, Pope Benedict made a conscious decision not to give himself that little more leeway, to create these two heads of red hat sees cardinals. Why?

To point the facts out and then to pose that question has nothing to do with "nastiness" and it has nothing to do with "love", or the lack of it. It is realism. It is a question which begs to be asked for the answer might just be important. There may be lessons to be learned. Not least by Archbishop Nichols. Problem is the Catholic newspapers and magazines aren't going to either ask or attempt to answer that question. Boats must not be rocked. Officially.

If Frederick Oakley or anybody else can come up with a viable alternative explanation as to why the Holy Father only took into account the five months following February; and, why he didn't include Archbishops Tagle and Nichols, I would be only too glad to hear and air it. For, believe it or not, I am an admirer of Archbishop Nichols. I have been introduced to him. Personally, I am simply at a loss to explain his actions referred to at the end of the original post. Most especially, I cannot understand why he made the statement he did about civil recognition of same-sex partnerships.

And I have taken the time and gone to the trouble of checking that he did in fact say what he was quoted as saying.

Humiliation for Archbishop Nichols

2012-01-13T01:59:00.000-08:00

Humiliation is the beginning of sanctification.

Right-thinking, fair-minded friends of the Catholic Church in England and Wales can only but hope and pray that on the night of Friday, January 6 — Feast of the Epiphany and the day of the announcement of the list of cardinals to be created on February 18 — that as he knelt at his bedside, rosary beads entwined in hands, head on same hands, eyes grimly shut, his prayers a personal, human and spiritual, struggle, the Holy Spirit came to Archbishop Vincent Nichols’s rescue, dispelling his confusion and hauling him back from the abyss of despair by reminding him of John Donne’s most apposite words.

For make no mistake, this was a humiliation for Archbishop Nichols. And it was meant to be.

Pope Benedict has so far been reluctant to exceed the limit of 120 cardinal electors first stipulated by Pope Paul VI. However, he has twice allowed himself a little leeway. For example, after the last consistory there were in fact 121 cardinal electors but that was only going to be for a few weeks.

This time, because of the need to have a balance in the list of new cardinals between curial prelates and archbishops from around the world, His Holiness has had to allow himself significantly more leeway. There are certain front rank positions within, or associated with, the Vatican which must be filled by a cardinal, or an archbishop who will be raised to that dignity at the first opportunity. These number 22 in all but to fill them requires only 21 men. (The Pope’s Vicar General for the Diocese of Rome is also the archpriest of the Basilica of St John Lateran.)

On the day of the announcement, eight of these posts were held by archbishops. In addition, there were two Archbishop Presidents of Pontifical Councils who merited elevation. They were passed over last time as there would have been just too many Italians on the list. These are Archbishops Antonio Mario Veglio (No 4 on the list) and Francesco Coccopalmerio (No 6). It would simply have been unfair, and have been seen to be unfair, if they were passed over again.

So, eight places in the College of Cardinal Electors HAD to go to the curia and a further two, in fairness, ought to; and did. But how many places were available?

José Cardinal Saraiva Martins, Prefect Emeritus of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, celebrated his 80th birthday on the day of the announcement and Joseph Cardinal Zen Ze-kiun, Bishop Emeritus of Hong Kong, was due to celebrate his one week later, on January 13. This meant that the roll of the cardinal electors was down to 107. Thus His Holiness could order 13 ponceau red birettas from the brothers Gammarelli, Filippo and Annibale.

But he ordered 18.

Having concluded that a list comprised of ten Vatican prelates and only three from the world’s dioceses was too imbalanced in favour of the curia, Pope Benedict took into account the fact that five cardinals were due to celebrate their 80th birthdays during the five calendar months following the consistory; one in each month, the last on July 26 (the American Cardinal Stafford).

Significantly, by doing so he was able to include the last two cardinal electors named in the list, Archbishops Dolan (New York) and Duka (Prague) (not to be confused with Dukla Prague!).

But why five months? Why not six? Half a year is better than five twelfths. And it would make for a sensible and simple rule: The maximum number of 120 cardinal electors can be temporarily exceeded by the Pope taking into account those cardinals who will attain their 80th birthday in the six calendar months following the month in which a consistory is held.

What would have been the effect this time? His Holiness would have had another two birettas to go round. Cardinals Rosales (Manila) and Murphy-O’Connor will both be 80 in August (10and 24 respectively). Thus he would have been free to elevate both of their successors, respectively Archbishop Luis Antonio Gokim Tagle and Archbishop Nichols. After all, theirs are the two most important “red hat” sees outside of Italy which currently do not have a cardinal archbishop.

In addition, this would have brought a numerical balance to the list: ten curial and ten diocesan cardinals-elect. What could be, or, rather, look, fairer than that? So why didn’t it happen? Why did His Holiness not avail himself of the opportunity of utilising two days short of one month?

Contrary to what some have suggested, there is absolutely no problem with Archbishop Tagle. It may, or may not, have been the case that it was only after they had nominated him as Archbishop that the members of the Congregation for Bishops found out about his connection to the Bologna School and the hermeneutic of disruption. Personally, I find that hard to believe, while granting that it may have been the case for some less theologically adept members, like Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor. But could anyone seriously suggest that the Pope himself was unaware of it?

In the 1990s, as Cardinal Prefect of the Suprema, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger appointed Fr Tagle to the International Theological Commission. Are we expected to take seriously any suggestion that he did so ignorant of what is being portrayed in some quarters as a sort of youthful indiscretion? Moreover, when any priest or prelate is being considered for promotion to, or within, the episcopacy, the CDF have to sign off on it precisely because they are supposed to know about such things as who belongs to this or that theological school; who has written this or that contentious, or otherwise, book, or article, or thesis. And in 2001 Cardinal Ratzinger signed off on the nomination of Fr Tagle for the See of Imus, suffragan of Manila.

No, there was no problem with Archbishop Tagle.

Archbishop Nichols was another matter altogether. Archbishop Tagle was sacrificed, as it were, to make Archbishop Nichols’s omission from the list appear less brutal.

Of course, being Scottish I couldn’t possibly speculate on the reasons behind all this. But rumours of the Cardinal Vaughan fiasco, the apparent acceptance of civil same-sex partnerships and the less than helpful, arguably obstructionist, attitude to the Ordinariate have percolated north of the border.

And of a certainty they have been heard in the Apostolic Palace. Maybe that is why Archbishop Nichols is hopping about, smoking gun in hand, smouldering hole in foot, and no ponceau red biretta on head, or on order.

2011-11-28T10:04:00.000-08:00

On 27 April 2005, during the first general audience following his election, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI placed himself firmly at the service of peace among peoples and in his first “Message for the Celebration of World Day of Peace” (New Year’s Day, 1 January 2006), he expanded on this: “I wish to reiterate the steadfast resolve of the Holy See to continue serving the cause of peace.

“The very name Benedict, which I chose on the day of my election to the Chair of Peter, is a sign of my personal commitment to peace. In taking this name, I wanted to evoke both the Patron Saint of Europe, who inspired a civilization of peace on the whole continent, and Pope Benedict XV, who condemned the First World War as a ‘useless slaughter’ and worked for a universal acknowledgment of the lofty demands of peace.”

Having so recently celebrated Christmas, it is apposite to reflect that at the outset of his Pontificate, as a catastrophic war threatened to engulf Europe, in his first encyclical Pope Benedict XV wrote: “God grant by His mercy and blessing, that the glad tidings the Angels brought at the birth of the divine Redeemer of mankind may soon echo forth as we His Vicar enter upon His Work: ‘on earth peace to men of good will.’”¹

Addressing the current threats to justice and peace, Benedict XVI first singled out the scourge of terrorism, which he equated with the coevals of nihilism and fundamentalism. Of these he said: “…the nihilist denies the very existence of truth, while the fundamentalist claims to be able to impose it by force.”

But it wasn’t only terrorists with whom the Holy Father was concerned, for governments and big business also undermine peace: “One can only note with dismay the evidence of a continuing growth in military expenditure and the flourishing arms trade, while the political and juridical process established by the international community for promoting disarmament is bogged down in general indifference.”

Civil society so threatened in all corners of the globe, the role of the Church was clear: “In view of the risks which humanity is facing in our time, all Catholics in every part of the world have a duty to proclaim and embody ever more fully the ‘Gospel of Peace’…”

All these words of the Holy Father resonate with those spoken by Pius XII shortly after his election as another World War loomed imminently on Europe’s horizon: “It is by force of reason, and not by force of arms, that justice makes progress. Empires which are not founded on justice are not blessed by God. Statesmanship emancipated from morality betrays those very ones who would have it so. The danger is imminent, but there is yet time. Nothing is lost by peace; everything may be lost by war.”

Nothing is lost by peace; everything may be lost by war! These most eloquent words, spoken by Pius XII, were in fact coined by his sostituto, Mgr Battista Montini, the future Pope Paul VI. Do they not encapsulate the very essence of the message of Catholic Christianity as put forward by our present Pontiff so often in the short time since his election?

But His Holiness has also pointed out that others, too, apart from the Catholic Church and Faithful, have responsibilities for advancing this message; and some at least have not been found wanting.

In his Message, Pope Benedict noted: “I wish to express gratitude to the international organizations and to all those who are daily engaged in the application of international humanitarian law… By their commitment to safeguarding the good of peace, the various agencies of the international community will regain the authority needed to make their initiatives credible and effective.”

Moreover, His Holiness was not unmindful of what is nowadays referred to as ‘the peace dividend’. He explained that the New Millennium commitment to end poverty was inextricably linked to disarmament, saying: “The first to benefit from a decisive choice for disarmament will be the poor countries, which rightly demand, after having heard so many promises, the concrete implementation of their right to development.

“That right was solemnly reaffirmed in the recent General Assembly of the United Nations Organization, which this year celebrated the sixtieth anniversary of its foundation.

“The Catholic Church, while confirming her confidence in this international body, calls for the institutional and operative renewal which would enable it to respond to the changed needs of the present time, characterized by the vast phenomenon of globalisation. The United Nations Organization must become a more efficient instrument for promoting the values of justice, solidarity and peace in the world.”

New Nuncio to Ireland

2011-11-28T09:53:00.000-08:00

The new Apostolic Nuncio to Ireland is Mgr Charles John (Charlie) Brown, heretofore an official of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Mgr Brown was called to Rome in 1994 to work in the CDF and served under His Holiness until the death of Pope John Paul II in 2005.

Roma locuta est. And how!

The new Nuncio has not, as is the usual case, been selected from within the Holy See’s diplomatic corps by the Secretary of State, advised by his two most senior collaborators, the Secretary of State Substitute for General Affair (Sostituto) and the Secretary for Relations with States.

Pope Benedict has sent a clear and unambiguous message to the Church, the Government and, and by no means least, the people of Ireland: “Ireland may seem to turn her back on Rome, but Rome will never turn her back on Ireland. And I send this man whom I personally have chosen as my token of my word.”

As he has done so often in the past, when looking to make a key appointment, His Holiness has looked to his closest collaborators, usually in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the CDF) and on the International Theological Commission (the ITC), but twice he has advanced the curial careers of the sostituti who have worked with him.

Most importantly, of course, he chose Tarcisio Cardinal Bertone, formerly Secretary of the CDF, to succeed His Eminence Angelo Sodano as Cardinal Secretary of State. Cardinal Bertone is not a product of the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy, the academia, and so had no background in papal diplomacy. And that is also the case with Mgr Brown.

Although the announcement of his appointment was made on Saturday, November 26, the Pope’s decision to pick Mgr Brown for the post would have been made some weeks ago. The Vatican doesn’t just come up with a name and then announce it. The nominee has to be cleared by the host Government. Despite recent problems between the Irish Government and the Holy See, the nomination would not have been expected to cause any problems.

In the weeks since he consented to his appointment, Mgr Brown will have been undergoing a crash course in Vatican diplomacy and, in particular, on the Vatican’s relations with Ireland, both recent and since independence. That course will continue, and intensify, in the weeks leading up to his episcopal ordination (for which no date has as yet been set, but usually it takes about six weeks; on this occasion, since Mgr Brown has worked so closely with the Pope at the CDF, one would expect His Holiness to offer Mgr Brown the option of being episcopally ordained in St Peter’s with the Holy Father officiating).

Of course, the director of this crash course is a man of no inconsiderable significance for the future relations between Rome and Dublin. And that man is a priest of the Diocese of Motherwell, Mgr Leo Cushley, Head of the English Language Section of the Secretariat of State.

Comments on The (Glasgow) Herald Letters on Same-sex marriage

2011-10-13T01:07:00.000-07:00

On Wednesday, Oct 12, there were three Letters to the Editor published in The Herald. I replied to one from Tim Hopkins, Equality Network, 30 Bernard Street, Edinburgh. Naturally, as per usual The Herald declined to publish my response. (That they recently published my Letter to the Editor re Bishop Hugh Gilbert was very much an exception to their usual rule and was doubtless a result of the Letters boys having little choice as it related to a matter on which one of their senior journalists had interviewed me some weeks earlier. See below.)

This was by no means Hopkns’s first Letter to the Editor on the topic. For illustrative purposes, the purpose of which illustration being to demonstrate the intellectual paucity and dishonesty of his contributions, I will give in full his Letter of Sept 20. He wrote (my comments in square brackets, in red):

“The report of Brian Souter’s comments about marriage states that five MSPs have signed a Parliamentary motion saying that churches should not be forced to approve same-sex marriages (“Society will implode if marriage fails, warns Stagecoach tycoon”, The Herald, September 19).

“Four MSPs signed that motion, including its author, John Mason, but no-one is proposing churches be forced to do anything. [In 2004 no-one was proposing same-sex marriage, but they are back now not ‘proposing’ but demanding exactly that.] It should also have been reported that 50 MSPs signed Patrick Harvie’s counter motion supporting same-sex marriage. [Why should it also have been reported that 50 MSPs had signed the pro-homosexualist motion? That was not the story. Are the homosexualist lobby now demanding that all reporting/comment on this matter should be balanced, objective? No, this is evidence of the homofascism now so evident in the USA and Canada having swiftly crossed the pond.]

“Mr Souter says stable marriage-based families are the bedrock of society. There are excellent families where the parents are not married, or only one parent is present. [But they are NOT the bedrock of society.] And there are excellent families headed by same-sex couples. [But they are NOT the bedrock of society, even if they can be shown to be in any way ‘excellent’. They are also, excellent or nay, an infinitesimally small and hence statistically irrelevant segment of society.] If Mr Souter believes marriage is good for mixed-sex couples, their children, and society, surely it would also be good for same-sex couples, their children and society?[ Non sequitur.]

“Why should the children of same-sex couples be discriminated against [they aren’t] by denying their parents the choice of the same married status as other parents? [The same-sex couple themselves made a choice, a choice by which they excluded themselves from the institution of marriage. Marriage preceded the state and so the state cannot legitimately legislate to redefine it.]”

I will not quote Hopkins’s Letter of Wednesday, it would take too long to type out. My unpublished reply read:

“Scotland’s Catholic bishops are being castigated for doing what the Scottish Government claim they want us all to do: engage in a dialogue about same-sex marriage. Apparently, you are only allowed to talk if you say what the homosexualist, it would be more accurate to say homofascist, lobby want you to say.

“Mind you, unlike some of them our bishops aren’t so wrapped up in this question that they are neglecting other matters. Domestic violence, poverty and war: the Catholic Church here in Scotland, led from the front by our bishops, are actively involved. Mind you, you won’t read about it in your newspapers because not everything our bishops say and do is ‘automatically newsworthy’ (Tim Hopkins, Letters, Oct 12). For example, did you know that the Catholic Church was the first, and remains the biggest, provider of HIV/Aids care in Africa? Thought not.

“Hopkins states that according to the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey 61% of Scots ‘support same-sex marriage’ with only 19% opposed to it.

“I am no expert on statistics and sampling methodology and those sampled may or may not represent a statistically fair cross-section of the Scottish people, but all that can be said is that of those sampled, 1500 or so, 21%, 300 or so, were prepared to tick the box on the questionnaire which indicated that they were strongly in agreement with the statement ‘Gay or lesbian couples should have the right to marry one another if they want to.’

“79%, or 1,300 or so, weren’t.

“There is, of course, a world of difference between ticking a box on a form that someone leaves for you after having had a nice wee chat — and you want to please them, I presume but wouldn’t know as I’ve never been sampled and neither has anybody I know — and ticking a box on a ballot paper in a booth in your local primary school. That involves a real choice, with real consequences.

Since Tim Hopkins is so confident that the support for his position is so overwhelming, and in any election support of 61% of the population would be overwhelming, I presume that he will be entirely happy to see me soon have the opportunity of casting a ballot on the matter? Referenda should only be held for matters of the greatest import and what can be more important than the very foundation upon which our society, our civilisation is based: the family? And that is the family as we know it.

Hopkins also states that his carefully constructed 69% included ‘a majority of Catholics’. This is ambiguous but I presume he meant that of those interviewed who self-identified themselves as Catholics most indicated what he has interpreted as support for same-sex marriage.

This would be interesting IF it were true. However, I have searched through the material published on the Scottish Government website and can find absolutely no justification whatsoever for this assertion. Christians are not further subdivided.

Strangely, Hopkins insists that the introduction of civil partnerships in 2004 hasn’t, contrary to the then stated fears of the Catholic hierarchy, undermined marriage. If it hasn’t, then how come he is now back doing his Oliver Twist and demanding more?

Some years ago I pointed out in these columns that Parliament had in its wisdom voted to make homosexual acts between consenting couples in private legal but that it hadn’t made them compulsory. Today I add ‘as yet’. Yours etc”

That Letter on Bishop Hugh Gilbert (see above) was published on Aug 16 and read:

“Rebecca Gray (Ex-monk is first of the new bishops, p11, Aug 15) refers to Bishop Hugh Gilbert as a ‘former monk once chosen by Pope Benedict XVI to be the next leader of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales’.

She later refers to a piece by Gerry Braden earlier in the year which highlighted the fact that all but two of Scotland’s Catholic bishops will have to be replaced within the not too distant future. Since I was quoted by Gerry in his piece, and since the hierarchy and their official spokesmen are busy elsewhere (hence the article), perhaps you will allow me to comment on the above?

Firstly, Bishop Hugh is not an ‘ex-monk’. He continues to be a professed Benedictine, as evidenced by the fact that he will continue to be known by his name in religion, Hugh, and not by his baptismal name, Edward. He has, of course, for the foreseeable future been freed from his obligation to ‘stability’, to remain resident within the abbatial cloister. Hopefully, in the fullness of time, should the good Lord grant him sufficiently in excess of the proverbial three score years and ten, he will return thereto.

Secondly, Bishop Hugh was never ‘chosen by’ Pope Benedict to be ‘the next leader’ of the Catholic Church in England and Wales. Between Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor submitting his resignation as Archbishop of Westminster on his 75th birthday (Aug 4, 2007) and the appointment of Archbishop Vincent Nicholls as his successor (Apr 3, 2009) many kites were flown. In The Times, Bishop Philip Tartaglia of Paisleywas put forward as a serious proposition by Ruth Gledhill (November 22, 2008). Abbot (now Bishop) Hugh was posited by Simon Caldwell in the Daily Mail (Jan 1, 2009).

Laugh? I nearly took out a couple of subscriptions.

I had the good fortune to meet Archbishop Nicholls, whom I correctly predicted for the position of Archbishop of Westminster as soon as it became vacant (and thereafter stuck with), at Bamburgh during my recent annual holiday on the north Northumberland coast. If you want another prediction, I look forward to meeting him in Rome when (and not if) he is made a cardinal, probably in November of 2012. Yours etc”

Cardinal Andre Armand Vingt-Trois of Paris

2011-10-10T20:13:00.000-07:00

These photos were taken by me in St Peter's Basilica on the Monday morning of the consistory weekend in November 2007.

Freeing of the Lockerbie Bomber

2011-09-25T01:34:00.000-07:00

When on the night of December 21, 1988, a part of the debris from the explosion aboard Clipper Maid of the Seas, Pan Am Flight 103, landed on their home at 16 Sherwood Crescent, Lockerbie, Kathleen Flannigan (nee Doolan, aged 41 years), her husband, Thomas (44) and their daughter Joanne (10) were killed instantly. Sadly, no remains of Kathleen or Thomas were subsequently recovered. Their younger son Steven (14) was at a neighbour’s house where that neighbour was kindly checking out the new bicycle Joanne was to get as a Christmas present. From the neighbour’s garage, Steven saw the fireball that engulfed his home. After what seems to have been a serious fall out with his parents, Steven’s older brother, David (19) had left home a few weeks earlier to stay with a friend in Blackpool. However, some sort of reconciliation had been achieved and his mother had told her friend that David was coming home on Boxing Day. Both boys both later died in unfortunate, indeed, tragic circumstances.

This family were the sister, brother-in-law, niece and nephews of a good friend of mine, Peter Doolan, during my schooldays at Our Lady’s High School, Motherwell. They were also the daughter, son-in-law, granddaughter and grandsons of a teaching colleague at St Aidan’s High School, Wishaw. Unfortunately, I did not get to know Lawrence Doolan as well as I would have liked because he was on sick leave when I joined the staff in January, 1980, and only returned briefly before retiring when the school broke up for the summer holidays.

I would hope that it would be accepted that I am hence anxious that justice be done for and on behalf of all the victims of that dastardly act, but what has long concerned me is not the guilt or otherwise of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi. No, what I would like to know is this: Why did Her Majesty’s Government − the real one, the one with its head office in Downing Street – not intervene to prevent the Scottish administration freeing Megrahi from prison on compassionate grounds?

Why did Her Majesty’s Labour Government not insist that barring a decision by the Scottish justiciary to free him, he must remain in prison? And, and just as important, why did none of the Opposition, particular the Tories, demand that they do?

In all that has ever been discussed in the print media, on TV and the Radio as well as at both Westminster and Holyrood, both before and after Megrahi was allowed to return home, it has been taken as a given that any decision to release him from Greenock Prison could only be taken by the Scottish administration. And that is perfectly correct. But only in so far as it goes.

Under the devolution disposition, in relation to legislation ALL matters concerning national security, foreign policy and foreign relations are reserved to Westminster. Similarly, in relation to executive action ALL matters concerning national security, foreign policy and foreign relations are reserved to Whitehall.

Megrahi’s arrest, detention, trial, imprisonment and then, finally, the decision to set him free on licence intimately involved all elements of that oft times unholy trinity: national security, foreign policy and foreign relations.

At all material times Megrahi was a Foreign Service officer of the Libyan State Security apparatus, acting on instructions of his government. As far as I know, he remains one; although, obviously, now on sick leave. His actions, whatever they may have been, were for and on behalf of that government. Even his surrender to the Scottish authorities was done under instruction of that government.

Innocuously enough styled Head of Airport Security, since Megrahi’s normal activities would have impinged on our national security then surely even prior to the heinous crime which brought him to world attention he, his activities and his professional associates would have been of interest to the Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, and, in all probability, to the Security Service, MI5?

It seems self-evident that in anticipation of the possibility of Megrahi’s release it would have been obvious to those in Downing Street, Whitehall and Edinburgh that any decision to release him would hazard serious implications for our national security and our foreign relations. And, indeed, as to the latter our relations with the USA were severely damaged.

Predictably so since the deal to have Megrahi and Lamin Khalifah Fhimah put on trial was negotiated by the Foreign Office who gave assurances to our most cherished foreign partner that there would be no question of parole if convictions were secured. Life would mean life.

Presumably for both the Blair and Brown administrations there was some foreign policy imperative which made breaking that promise, and the deterioration in relations with the United States that would, and duly did, ensue acceptable to Downing Street and Whitehall.

But why should I think that Downing Street and Whitehall could have prevented Megrahi’s release?

Consider this, those apprehended in Scotland in relation to the bombing at Glasgow airport were interrogated and put on trial outwith the jurisdiction of the Scottish courts. This was also true of the accused arrested in Scotland. He was removed from the jurisdiction for reasons of national security. Elish Angiolini, the Lord Advocate, graciously acceded to the request from Downing Street and Whitehall.

Had she been daft enough not to so accede it would have been pointed out to her from south of the border that the courts, even the Scottish courts, would not have supported her as the constitutional arrangements put in place for devolution to go ahead made it clear that national security, as also foreign relations, trumped delegated powers in all areas.

And that includes the control of prisons and prisoners. Her Majesty’s Government, the real one, both avoided and evaded their responsibilities for national security and foreign relations by not instructing the Scottish administration not to free Megrahi and, had they demurred, then taking them to the Court of Session. I am no lawyer, but I cannot envision that a recourse to the Supreme Court in London would have been necessary.

It was Denis Healy who said that the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion was the thickness of a prison cell wall. Those who evaded their responsibilities by allowing Megrahi’s release should remember that omission is as much of a sin as commission.

The Cloyne Report

2011-09-25T01:23:00.000-07:00

An Éamon de Valera, or a Sean Lemass, or, even, a humble Jack Lynch, he ain’t.

Enda Kenny was born in 1951, third of the five children of Ethne and Henry Kenny, an All-Ireland Gaelic footballer (1936, Mayo), Fine Gael TD, and Parliamentary Private Secretary who died shortly after being diagnosed with cancer in 1975. Henry’s election was entirely due to his prominence in GAA circles, neither he nor any of his antecedents were politicians.

After reading the Holy See’s response to the Cloyne Report and associated matters, it could be argued that neither is his son.

When Henry died, the party wanted one of his sons to stand in the by-election and the ticket went to Enda, then just turned 24 years and a nascent primary school teacher. He became the youngest TD in the 20th Dail and is today, apart from being the Prime Minister (Taoiseach), the Father of the House, the longest serving member elected to the 31st Dail.

Kenny the younger’s accession to high office is testament to endurance and not to intellectual ability, political acumen, oratorical skill, or charisma. He was in the wrong queue when such gifts were on offer. That notwithstanding, he has secured for himself a place all of his own in Ireland’s long, glorious and oft’ times harrowing history as a Catholic country. And for a most unsavoury reason which curiously for modern-day Irish politics didn’t even involve bribery and corruption, let alone tax evasion never mind jobs for the boys.

Unless the boy involved is his speech-writer.

On Wednesday, July 20, just before 2 pm he rose in the Dail to launch a vicious, nasty and wholly unjustified, and unjustifiable, attack upon the Church IN as well as OF Rome, and of Rome’s representatives to the Republic of Ireland, successive Apostolic Nuncios.

Scathing from the outset, Kenny opined: “(F)or the first time in this country a report into child sexual-abuse exposes an attempt by the Holy See, to frustrate an Inquiry in a sovereign, democratic republic as little as three years ago, not three decades ago. And in doing so, the Cloyne Report excavates the dysfunction, disconnection, elitism that dominate the culture of the Vatican to this day. The rape and torture of children were downplayed or ‘managed’ to uphold instead, the primacy of the institution, its power, standing and ‘reputation’.”

It couldn’t get any worse? It did!

For he then went on to witheringly observe: “Far from listening to evidence of humiliation and betrayal with St Benedict’s ‘ear of the heart’ the Vatican’s reaction was to parse and analyse it with the gimlet eye of a canon lawyer.”

A nasty picture did he indeed paint of the Vatican and all its works. Or, rather, did the aforementioned speech-writer. The only problem is that it bears no resemblance to the truth. Unless, of course, you consider that Bishop John Magee and Msgr Denis O’Callaghan ARE the Vatican.

And when the Leader of the Opposition, Fainna Fáil’s Michael Martin, rose to second the Taoiseach’s motion — an unusual occurrence designed to emphasise the unity of the House — distortion, exaggeration and half-truth were again preferred to fact. This was also the case with subsequent contributors to the debate. In Ireland as else- and everywhere, sticking to the facts seldom leads to the laudatory headlines from which votes are cast.

Mr Martin stated as “undeniable facts” that “the Church’s leadership in the diocese and in Rome showed a callous disregard for (the) safety and the rights of the most vulnerable members of its flock.” Last year he had warned the Papal Nuncio that “the Irish State expected the Vatican’s full co-operation in the investigation into abuse in the Cloyne diocese and in all other investigations. Its defensiveness and focus on the institutional interests of the church rather than those of the children abused by its clergy and shielded by its leaders will continue to cause great damage.”

Next up was Dara Calleary, TD for Mayo: “… the strongest message should be directed at those who covered it up in Cloyne, the Vatican and elsewhere … (who) in full knowledge of the horrendous impact of abuse arising from previous commissions of inquiries, cases and disclosures and in full knowledge of the fact that it was either happening within their own organisation or in their area, proceeded with contempt for survivors and victims, contempt for their own Church and the members and colleagues who serve it, and contempt, IN THE CASE OF THE VATICAN, FOR THE LAWS OF AN INDEPENDENT NATION STATE with, ultimately, a shared contempt for the truth” (emphasis added).

The leader of parliamentary Sinn Féin, TD Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin, then rose in indignation to confess: “While Sinn Féin supports the motion, we would have preferred to see the stronger language contained in a previous draft employed. The motion expresses how the House deplores the Vatican’s intervention which contributed to the undermining of the child protection frameworks and guidelines of the State and Irish bishops. Previously, the motion expressed condemnation. We in Sinn Féin still express condemnation of this scandalous intervention.”

So what was this allegedly “scandalous intervention” to which Enda Kenny had adverted earlier, the Holy See’s alleged attempt “to frustrate an Inquiry in a sovereign, democratic republic as little as three years ago, not three decades ago”.

In the following day’s Irish Times it was claimed that the Taoiseach had no specific incident in mind as the basis for this reference to “three years ago”. This is being economical with the truth, to say the least. To create oratorical effect Kenny’s speech-writer had placed “three” in counterpoint to “three decades” when in fact the matters adverted to had occurred thirteen or fourteen years ago.

The Cloyne report highlights a letter sent in 1997 to the members of the Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference by the then Apostolic Nuncio to Ireland, the late Archbishop Luciano Storero. His Excellency wrote at the request, and under direction from, the Congregation for the Clergy, then headed by Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos.

The letter concerned a document which after publication was originally referred to as “The Green Book”. Its correct title was in fact “Child Sexual Abuse: Framework for a Church Response” and had been drafted by the Irish Catholic Bishops’ Advisory Committee on Child Sexual Abuse by Priests and Religious.

This Committee was established in 1994 under the Chairmanship of the Most Rev. Laurence
Forristal, then Bishop of Ossory, now retired, and was tasked to identify guidelines for dealing with instances of allegations of, or suspicions of, child sexual abuse by a priest or other religious. The members of the Committee were drawn from the hierarchy, the secular clergy, religious orders and various relevant professions — Psychiatry, Paediatrics, Law, Canon Law; the world of Communications was also represented.

On December 23, 1995, the Committee faxed a copy to the Congregation for the Clergy, with which it had been in contact throughout. It seems likely that copies would have also been made available to other relevant dicasteries for their consideration. One would imagine that this would have involved: the Secretariat of State; the Congregations for Faith, Bishops, Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life; the Sacred Penitentiary, the Apostolic Signatura and the Sacred Roman Rota, the three Tribunals of the Roman Curia; and, the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts. The list is neither inclusive nor exclusive, merely a personal expectation of who might have been involved.

The document and the Vatican’s response to it have suffered because of the simple fact that no-one has paid any attention to the document’s correct title, its origin and, and most importantly, why it was sent to the Vatican. Or perhaps they have merely, wilfully or otherwise, misinformed themselves about it.

Whilst the Episcopal Conference were entitled to ask that all members adopt the recommendations contained in the report, to become an official document of the Conference, CANONICALLY BINDING on all members and those under their jurisdiction, it had to be ratified by Rome, in accordance with universal Church law and procedure and as provided for in the Conference’s constitution. Drafted by a mix of laity, religious (male and female), clergy and prelate, it had to be adopted, adapted if necessary, into the corpus of the Canon Law and for that scrutiny by the relevant dicasteries in Rome and the adoption of any suggestions they might make would not be enough. “Recognitio” would have had to be sought, and granted, from the Congregation for Bishops: this was never done by the Irish Bishops’ Conference.

In any case, as a result of that scrutiny, Archbishop Storero wrote to the Irish Bishops and informed them that in the considered opinion of the Congregation for the Clergy, no doubt advised by other dicasteries, the document contained “procedures and dispositions which appear contrary to canonical discipline and which, if applied, could INVALIDATE THE ACTS OF THE SAME BISHOPS WHO ARE ATTEMPTING TO PUT A STOP TO THESE PROBLEMS” (emphasis added).

In other words, the Congregation for the Clergy were concerned that if the Irish Bishops implemented the proposals, and they WERE NOT PROHIBITING THEIR IMPLEMENTATION, they might in fact not help to deal with the problem because errant priests could appeal firstly, at diocesan level and then, secondly, to Rome. So, instead of decisive action we would have uncertainty and delay.

In one of the Dublin cases, when the matter was referred on appeal to Rome, by Papal authority the prelate auditors, the judges, of the Tribunal of the Sacred Roman Rota were asked to handle the case. They wisely ruled that it would be far better to retain the errant priest as a priest under the canonical authority of the ordinary (the bishop) of the Archdiocese of Dublin with the proviso that that authority direct him to a cloistered and monitored life in a monastery under discipline.

This way, there would not be, or, at the very least, there shouldn’t have been, the opportunity of further contact with children and the consequent opportunity to offend. In time, it is believed a period of no less than ten years was envisaged, the offender priest might have become, or might have been induced by treatment to become, safe to return to the wider community, with restrictions and under continuing supervision, either still as a priest or otherwise.

This brilliant decision was attacked in Ireland, and furth of Ireland, by what can only now be described as “the usual suspects”. Un-cloistered and unmonitored by Church or State, this danger to children remained at large, free to offend again, and again. And that is exactly what he did.

The nuncio concluded his letter to the Irish Bishops by spelling out the problem: “in the sad cases of accusations of sexual abuse by clerics, the procedures established by the Code of Canon Law must be meticulously followed under pain of invalidity of the acts involved if the priest so punished were to make hierarchical recourse against his Bishop.”

This is of absolutely no relevance to the civil criminal law! Such an appeal might, and hopefully could only, be launched from within a prison cell.

All the Nuncio is spelling out is that if you get the technicalities of enforced laicization (defrocking) wrong then the offender priest can drag it out. Yes, doing damage to the “image” of the Church, but far more importantly increasing the suffering of the victim and prolonging the anguish of his family and his friends; as also the anguish of the family and friends of the offender priest. And the parishioners involved.

And it must be remembered that often the latter might not be all that the priest and victim have in common, for they may very well share family and friends.

Commentary of the list of new cardinals: Part I

2010-10-21T19:42:00.001-07:00

Well, some I got right and some I got wrong.

But first I must apologise for a wee mistake in my last post. You will see that the last paragraph begins: “Another obvious choice which would be welcomed by the synod would be…”

Obviously, I have not given the first choice. Sadly, and stupidly, I failed to transfer what should have been the previous paragraph from my draft Word documents to my “New Post” thingy. I was working on several different pieces on the same topic at the one time and cutting and pasting them to put up in my Blog. You will see from my intermittent attempts at trying to keep the Blog going that I am not very computer-technically minded. I hope you will take my word for it, but the missing bit read:

“The most obvious choice form among the 6 Eastern-rite Patriarchs for elevation to the Sacred College would be Antonios Naguib (75), Patriarch of Alexandria of the Copts who was chosen by Pope Benedict to act as recording secretary of the October 2010 Special Assembly of the Synod of Bishops for the Middle East.”

Anyway, to business. As anticipated, the Holy Father has decided to create ten new cardinals in curia. However, two of the cardinals-elect are a bit of a surprise, Archbishops: Robert Sarah (Guinean, 65), President of the Pontifical Council “Cor Unum”, and; Kurt Koch(Swiss, 60), President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. Both have but recently been appointed, respectively on October 7 and on July 1.

They seem to have been advanced at the expense (if I may put it that way) of Archbishops Francesco Coccopalmerio (Italian, 72), President of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts (appointed on February 15, 2007) and Antonio Maria Veglio (Italian, 71), Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People (appointed on February 28, 2009).

Clearly, taking into account that the Pope must have hesitated at the thought of creating so many cardinals “in curia” at the one time ― and these were not the only other Archbishop Presidents overlooked for a red hat ― the very fact that they are both Italians has counted against them. But bearing in mind that Msgr Sarah is placed so high in the list, at No 3, and that Msgr Koch at No 7 is placed ahead of the Prefect of a Congregation and a couple of Archbishop Presidents appointed before him, it is clear that their inclusion ahead of others is not simply a matter of seeking to avoid a nationality imbalance in favour of Italy.

Pope Benedict obviously has a very high opinion of Cardinal-elect Sarah and attaches great importance to the work of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. Most especially does the Holy Father value the work of that dicastery in the ongoing (resumed) dialogue with the Orthodox Churches. He publicly stated at the outset of his pontificate that he did not have an agenda, a manifesto, but Benedict’s hopes for real movement towards healing with the separated brethren of the Apostolic-succession Churches of the East have been evident virtually from Day One. Day Two, in fact, for on Wednesday, April 20, 2005, the day following his election, he addressed the Sacred College of Cardinals and said:

“Fully conscious, therefore, at the beginning of his ministry in the Church of Rome, which Peter bathed with his blood, his present Successor aims, as a primary commitment, to work without sparing energies for the reconstitution of the full and visible unity of all the followers of Christ. This is his ambition, this is his imperative duty.” (Benedict XVI'S Message to Cardinals, April 20, 2005, N5)

A few days later, when Pope Benedict XVI first addressed the faithful gathered in St Peter’s Square from his study window, he said: “I greet with especial affection the Orthodox Churches and the Eastern Orthodox Churches which today celebrate the Resurrection of Christ. To these dear brothers and sisters of ours, I address the traditional announcement of joy: Christos anesti! Christ is risen!”

As with his first appointment, the first words addressed by a new Pope to the faithful on his first Sunday might be taken to have great significance. This was certainly the case here. It seemed that His Holiness had clearly placed improved relations with the Orthodox Churches at the top of his agenda. And if this were the case then his choice of a successor to himself at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would be crucial.

A clue to that particular succession surfaced another few days later, on May 3. In that day’s Vatican News release it was recorded that Pope Benedict had received in audience the Most Reverend William J Levada, Archbishop of San Francisco, USA. Up to that point His Holiness had received in audience 11 cardinals. Of the six archbishops he had received, three were senior Vatican officials, two were members of the Presidency of the Latin American Episcopal Council (CELAM), which had been received as a group, and one was a Sri Lankan archbishop on his ad limina visit. He had also received six other Bishops, members of the Sri Lankan hierarchy.

He had officially received not one member of the hierarchy of the United States of America, not even any of the American cardinals! Moreover, before welcoming Archbishop Levada that day, His Holiness had received the President of Italy, Carlo Azeglio Ciampi, and his Foreign Minister, Gianfranco Fini, their wives and an entourage.

So to the astute observer the question was: What gives with this Californian? Cardinals, archbishops and bishops from all over the world in Rome and the new Pope receives the archbishop of San Francisco. A guy in an archiepiscopal See which doesn’t even rate a red hat!

When Cardinal Ratzinger was brought from Munich to Rome in 1981 to serve as Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and as President of both the International Theological Commission and the Pontifical Biblical Commission, the Rt Rev Mgr Dr William Joseph (Bill) Levada was a senior official of the CDF. One of his areas of expertise was, and still is, the Orthodox Churches.

Another indication of the importance the Holy Father gives to this field was his appointment on June 9, 2007, of Leonardo Cardinal Sandri as Prefect of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches. For seven years Cardinal Sandri had served both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict as sostituto, Secretary of State Substitute for General Affairs, essentially the Papal Chief of Staff.

If there is any doubt as to the importance of this position of sostituto, or about the calibre of prelate appointed to it, then one need only cite two names: Pope Benedict XV and Pope Paul VI. The appointment of Leonardo Sandri was therefore highly significant.

(A little aside: during WW II, under Pope Pius XII, Msgr Battista ― as he was known to his family and friends ― Montini served as Secretary for General Affairs and Msgr Domenico Tardini as Secretary of the Sacred Congregation for the Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs of the Holy See, the position now held by Archbishop Mamberti under a different title. These were incredibly important jobs, but unlike today appointment to them did not bring the archiepiscopal dignity.

One day a member of the staff of the Secretariat of State went to see Msgr Tardini. The young Monsignor it seems was much agitated and sadly told his superior that there was a scandalous situation which threatened to become public. Apparently it was being much talked about that one of the curial cardinals was having an affair with a married lady. Tardini loftily dismissed the young Monsignor telling him to “go and see Montini. He deals with Ordinary affairs.”)

Hopefully, I’ll get back to dealing with the affairs of the Sacred College later today.

2010-10-18T14:32:00.000-07:00

Consistory may be announced Wednesday

2010-10-18T13:57:00.000-07:00

In 2007, Pope Benedict announced the list of new cardinals at the end of the Wednesday audience on October 17,approximately five-and-a-half weeks before the consistory. While I had expected the announcement of the third consistory of this pontificate on Sunday, it may well be that it will come on Wednesday. If it does not, then it seems likely that His Holiness will not hold a consistory before Easter when he will have 25 vacancies in the roll of cardinal electors to fill. I could only presume that financial considerations would drive such a decision.

Apart from the necessity of creating new cardinals to bring the strength of the college of cardinal electors back up to its maximum of 120, there is also the no small matter of it perhaps being thought prudent to put in place both a younger Dean and a younger vice-Dean currently and respectively Angelo Cardinal Sodano, Cardinal Bishop of Albano and Ostia, who will be 83 on November 23, just about the time the next consistory is expected, and Roger Marie Élie Etchegaray (88), Cardinal Bishop of Porto-Santa Rufina.

At present, the other members of the order of Cardinals Bishop are, excluding the Eastern rite patriarchs who do not vote for, and are not eligible to be elected, the Dean or vice-Dean: Giovanni Battista Re (77 on January 30), Sabina-Poggio Mirteto, Prefect Emeritus of the Congregation for Bishops; Francis Arinze (78 on November 1), Velletri-Segni, Prefect Emeritus of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments ; Tarcisio Bertone (76 on December 2), Frascati, Cardinal Secretary of State and Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church, and; José Saraiva Martins (79 on January 6), Palestrina, Prefect Emeritus of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints.

Bearing in mind all the other onerous duties the Holy Father has entrusted to the care of Cardin Bertone, it would seem most likely that he would favour the appointment of one of the other three to the Deanship and since he is known to respect Cardinal Arinze’s desire to pursue a quieter life at home in Nigeria then most likely Cardinal Re will get the papal nod for the Suburbicarian See of Ostia. But it must be emphasised that the rules state that it is free to the Cardinals Bishop to elect whomsoever it pleases them to from amongst their own number, although the Holy Father has to consent to the appointment of the elected.

There then follows the problem of who to appoint to Albano and to Porto-Santa Rufina. William Cardinal Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would seem an obvious choice for one. The other might well go to His Eminence Leonardo Cardinal Sandri, Prefect of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches, in recognition of his years of service to the Holy See and especially for the time spent as sostituto during the last years of the pontificate of Pope John Paul II and the early ones of this present one. Moreover, such an announcement during the Special Synod for the Middle East would go down well with the delegates present in Rome.

And IF the announcement IS made on Wednesday, October 20, while the Synod for the Middle East is in session, then it might very well be that the Holy Father, to show his solidarity with the region, will name cardinal one or two prelates connected with the Church very much suffering there.

Of the three cardinal patriarchs of Eastern-rite, none is now a cardinal elector and it would be a much appreciated gesture were Pope Benedict to announce the elevation of one of the other patriarchs while they are all in Rome

Another obvious choice which would be welcomed by the synod fathers would be that of His Beatitude Fouad Twal (70 on October 23), Patriarch of Jerusalem of the Latins (Coadjutor Archbishop of Jerusalem, September 8, 2005; succeeded as Patriarch, June 21, 2008) His Beatitude is a Member of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches.

Consistory 2010: The List?

2010-10-16T02:22:00.000-07:00

The Sacred College of Cardinals currently numbers 179 in all but only 103 are presently under 80 years of age and hence eligible to take part in a conclave as cardinal electors. If the consistory IS scheduled for Saturday, November 27, then a further two cardinals will have reached the electoral age limit: Cardinals Tumi, Cameroon, and Pujats, Latvia. This will allow for 19 nominations to the roll of cardinal electors.

In the unlikely event that the Pope should decide to leave summoning the cardinals to a consistory until the end of April, then another six places will become available, allowing for 25 nominations.

At the time of the release of the list for his second consistory (held on Saturday, November 24, 2007) Pope Benedict indicated that he was making an exception to the rule that there can be a maximum of 120 cardinal electors by nominating such a number as to temporarily, and for only a very short time, have 121.

IF he does call the consistory for November 27, it is entirely possible that he will again intimate that he is making an exception to the rule in order that he might include deserving nominees. If he then nominates 25 new cardinals it will be in the knowledge that, barring any visitations of the Grim Reaper, within a matter of only a few months the limit will honoured. (Pope John Paul II had no qualms whatsoever in exceeding the limit.)

It is possible that four Metropolitan Archbishops may well be included whose inclusion would be a notable, indeed controversial, exception to Pope Benedict’s generally applied principle that Metropolitans should only be elevated once their predecessor has ceased to be a cardinal elector. The inclusion of any, some, or all of them on the list is dependent upon whether or not the first named is included. These are Monsignori:

Cesare Nosiglia (66), Turin, Italy (October 11, 2010)

Timothy Michael Dolan (60), New York, USA (February 23, 2009)

Vincent Gerard Nichols (65 on November 8), Westminster, England (April 3, 2009)

Orani João Tempesta (60), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (February 27, 2009)

As things presently stand, and irrespective of when the third consistory of this pontificate is to be held, and no matter how many cardinals are created, nominations from within the Roman Curia will include five Archbishops who by virtue of the offices to which they have been appointed since Pope Benedict’s second consistory (November 24, 2007) MUST be created cardinal. (See the Apostolic Constitution Sapienti consilio [Pope St Pius X, June 29, 1908] and relevant subsequent papal endorsements up to and including Pastor Bonus [John Paul II, June 28, 1988]). These five are Monsignori:

Angelo Amato (Italian, 72) Prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints (July 9, 2008

Raymond Leo Burke (American, 62) Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura (June 27, 2008),

Fortunato Baldelli (Italian, 75), Major Penitentiary of the Apostolic Penitentiary (June 2, 2009)

Francesco Monterisi (Italian, 76) Archpriest of St Paul’s-Outside-the-Walls (July 3, 2009).

Mauro Piacenza (Italian, 66), Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy ( October 7, 2010)

In addition, there are five further cardinals in curia who are more or less confidently expected to be honoured:

Francesco Coccopalmerio (Italian, 72), President of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts (February 15, 2007)

Gianfranco Ravasi (Italian, 68 on Monday, October 18), Prefect of the Pontifical Council for Culture and President of both the Pontifical Commission for the Cultural Heritage of the Church and that for Sacred Archaeology (all as of September 3, 2007)

Velasio de Paolis (Italian, 75), President of the Prefecture for the Economic Affairs of the Holy See (April 12, 2008)

Antonio Maria Veglio (Italian, 71), President of the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People (February 28, 2009

Paolo Sardi (Italian, 76), Vice-Camerlengo (or, Chamberlain), Pro-Patron of the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and Malta (June 7, 2009)

It is just possible, and no more than that, that the Holy Father might also honour the founding President of the newest dicastery of the Roman Curia, which he himself has erected, Monsignor:

Salvatore Fisichella (Italian, 59), President of the Pontifical Council for the New Evangelization (June 30, 2010)

Nominations from the Metropolitan Archbishops will definitely include Monsignori:

Donald William Wuerl (70 on November 12), Washington DC, USA (May 16, 2006)

Paolo Romeo (72), Palermo, Sicily, Italy (December 19, 2006)

Reinhard Marx (57), Munich, Germany (November 30, 2007)

Giuseppe Betori (63), Florence, Italy (September 8, 2008)

Braulio Rodriguez Plaza (66), Toledo, Spain (April 16, 2009)

Msgri Józef Kowalczyk (72), Gniezno, Poland (Primate, May 8, 2010)

Kazimierz Nycz (60), Warsaw, Poland (March 3, 2007)

It is virtually certain that other nominations will include Monsignor:

(Albert) Malcolm Ranjith (Patabendige Don) (63 on November 12), Colombo, Sri Lanka(June 16, 2009)
Other possibilities are Monsignori

Pierre Nguyên Van Nhon (72), Hanoi, Vietnam (Coadjutor, April 22, 2010; May 13, 2010).

Thomas Christopher Cillins (63), Toronto, Canada (December 16, 2006) (Cardinal Ambrozic was 80 in January of this year).

John Atcherley Dew (62), Wellington, New Zealand (April 1, 2005) (Cardinal Williams was 80 in March of this year).

Allen Henry Vigneron (62 on October 21), Detroit, USA (January 5, 2009) (Cardinal Maida was 80 in March of this year).

Mieczysław Mokrzycki (49), Lviv, Ukraine (Coadjutor, September 29, 2007; October21, 2008)

Consistory 2010: Announcement expected Sunday, October 17

2010-10-13T03:23:00.000-07:00

The announcement on Thursday, October 7, that Pope Benedict had accepted the resignation of His Eminence Cláudio Cardinal Hummes, Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, came as a surprise and is taken as a sign that the Holy Father intends to hold a third consistory for the naming of new cardinals at an early date, probably Saturday, 27 November.

If this IS the case, then the list of new cardinals should be issued this coming Sunday, October 17.

A Franciscan, Cardinal Hummes was Archbishop of São Paolo, Brazil, before being called to Rome in 2006 as Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy. Although at 76 years of age already past the age limit, His Eminence is neither ill nor infirm and, indeed, still has a little over a year of his tenure to run.

It seems clear that the Pope must have had a good reason for acting now. And the best of reasons would be a desire to avoid having yet another head of a ranking dicastery, tribunal or other institute of the Holy See entitled by canon law, or by long custom and usage, to the cardinalatial dignity serving for some considerable time before being created cardinal.

This has already happened with Archbishops Raymond Leo Burke (American, 62) Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura (June 27, 2008), Angelo Amato (Italian, 72) Prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints (July 9, 2008), Fortunato Baldelli (Italian, 75), Major Penitentiary of the Apostolic Penitentiary (June 2, 2009), and Francesco Monterisi (Italian, 76) Archpriest of St Paul’s-Outside-the-Walls (July 3, 2009).

These will all be on the list whenever it is released and it is confidently expected that Msgr Angelo Amato, who served under the Holy Father at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, will have the position of honour, No 1 on the list. To him will go the signal honour of addressing the Pope on behalf of all the new cardinals at the public consistory on the Saturday morning.

The above named will be joined by the prelate chosen to succeed Cardinal Hummes as Secretary of the Congregation for the Clergy. This is the man largely responsible for ensuring the success of the Year of Priests, Msgr Mauro Piacenza, titular Archbishop of Victoriana (Victorian England, apparently; and, no, I don’t have a clue either).

These five are guaranteed to be on the list since the Apostolic Constitution Sapienti consilio (Pope St Pius X, June 29, 1908) and relevant subsequent papal endorsements up to and including Pastor Bonus (John Paul II, June 28, 1988) stipulate that the Prefects of all nine Congregations of the Roman Curia must either be a cardinal upon appointment or be created a cardinal at the earliest opportunity thereafter. The same applies to the Major Penitentiary of the Apostolic Penitentiary, the Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, and has until now applied to those appointed Archpriest of the three Major Basilicas which have always in modern times had such a prelate. It has only been since 2005 and the motu proprio “The Ancient and Venerable Basilica” (May 31) that St Paul’s-Outside-the-Walls has had an Archpriest nominated by the Supreme Pontiff but it can be assumed that that practice will also apply now in that case.

Other nominations from within the Roman Curia are also expected, Archbishops:

• Francesco Coccopalmerio (Italian, 72), Legislative Texts (February 15, 2007)
• Gianfranco Ravasi (Italian, 68 on Monday, October 18), Culture, who is also President of both the Pontifical Commission for the Cultural Heritage of the Church and that for Sacred Archaeology (all as of September 3, 2007)
• Velasio de Paolis (Italian, 75), Prefecture for the Economic Affairs of the Holy See (April 12, 2008)
• Antonio Maria Veglio (Italian, 71), Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People (February 28, 2009)
• Paolo Sardi (Italian, 76), Vice-Camerlengo (or, Chamberlain), Pro-Patron of the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and Malta (June 7, 2009).

The first two will be honoured because of the historic importance of their positions, their intellectual brilliance, their priestly reputations, the esteem in which they are held by Pope Benedict and their value to this pontificate.

Msgr De Paolis would be made cardinal because of the singular importance of his office. The Prefecture was erected in 1967 and of Msgr De Paolis’s five predecessors, four were cardinals on appointment and the other, his immediate predecessor, was elevated at the second consistory after his appointment. However, Cardinal Sebastini was appointed on November 3, 1997, and the list of 22 new cardinals to be elevated at the consistory of February 21, 1978, was announced on January 18. It is likely that his appointment came just too late to accommodate him.

Msgr Veglio would be honoured not because of his current position but because of his long and devoted service to the Holy See, firstly, in its diplomatic service and then, secondly, in the Roman Curia where he served as Secretary of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches. Of course, if the list of new cardinals IS announced this Sunday while the Special Synod for the Middle East is in progress, Msgr Veglio’s elevation will be received with especial delight by the Synod Fathers.

Msgr Sardi, was and remains a very senior curialist and his appointment to succeed the late Pio Cardinal Laghi emphasises this. That style – “Pro-Patron” – means that for the time being the Holy Father has reserved the patronage to himself. A similar thing happened before the last consistory. Cardinal Foley was appointed Pro-Grand Master of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem on June 27, 2007 and was raised to the cardinalatial dignity five months later.

(The Vice-Chamberlain of the Apostolic Camera was until 1870 Governor of the City of Rome. He is the prelate whose authority during a sede vacante is next only to that of the Camerlengo and the Dean of the Sacred College. To him is entrusted responsibility for the security of the conclave, to which no one can be admitted without his permission.)

While this might seem to be rather more than enough cardinals in curia, since the Holy Father chose to officially launch the new dicastery, the Pontifical Council for promoting the New Evangelization on Tuesday, October 12, ahead of the expected announcement of the list of new cardinals on October 17, this may indicate that he intends to create cardinal its founding President, Archbishop Salvatore Fisichella. (In this regard it should be noted that the constitution of the new dicastery includes “Art. 4. Paragraph 1. The Council is headed by an Archbishop President…” but this is in conformity with the constitutions of the other dicasteries which have at their head Archbishops President who are also cardinals.)

That all comes to ten or eleven new cardinals; but, how many will there, or can there, be?

The Sacred College of Cardinals currently numbers 179 in all but only 103 are presently under 80 years of age and hence eligible to take part in a conclave as cardinal electors. If the consistory IS scheduled for Saturday, November 27, then a further two cardinals will have reached the electoral age limit: Cardinals Tumi, Cameroon, and Pujats, Latvia. This will allow for 19 nominations to the roll of cardinal electors. (In the unlikely event that the Pope should decide to leave summoning the cardinals to a consistory until the end of April, then another six places would be available, allowing for 25 nominations.)

The non-curial cardinals to be created will be chosen from the ranks of the Metropolitan Archbishops from throughout the Universal Church. In Rome, the three regarded as the most important outside of Italy are Munich, New York and London, that is Westminster.

In the week following the last consistory, on November 30, 2007, it was announced that Msgr Reinhard Marx had been nominated Archbishop of Munich in succession to Friedrich Cardinal Wetter. Unquestionably, the choice of Msgr Marx was known in advance of the consistory. So why was the announcement delayed until after it?

There are two possibilities. Firstly, the Archbishop of Munich is always created cardinal at the earliest opportunity after appointment. It may well have been that Msgr Marx had emerged as the preferred candidate just too late to be included in the consistory and so the announcement had to be delayed in order that the impression was not given that Munich had been snubbed. Or, secondly, at the time of the consistory Cardinal Wetter was still a cardinal elector and would remain so until February 20 in the following year, 2008. What did that matter?

Msgr Marx will definitely be on the list of new cardinals and so, too, will Msgr Paolo Romeo (Italian, 72) Archbishop of Palermo (December 19, 2006). Prior to his nomination to Palermo, Msgr Romeo was Apostolic Nuncio to Italy. In modern times those prelates who have risen to the summit of the diplomatic service of the Holy See with appointment as Nuncio to either Italy or France have at the end of their tenure then retired from the diplomatic service and have been given a red hat (see Pope John XXIII).

The problem for Msgr Romeo was that the man he was replacing, His Eminence Salvatore Cardinal de Giorgi, was only 76 years old and hence still a cardinal elector. Moreover, at the time of the last consistory, in November 2007, he was still only 77. This is a problem that has only really surfaced in relatively recent times: cardinal metropolitan archbishops retiring while they are still cardinal electors.

There is no law which says that their successors cannot be created cardinal until either they have turned their toes up or celebrated their 80th birthdays. But clearly Pope Benedict has decided that it is in general a bad idea, risking an undue bias, or weighting, should a conclave become necessary. It would be like a Tesco sale: two votes for the price of one!

This begs the question: Will the recently appointed Metropolitan Archbishops of New York, Westminster, and, and just as importantly, Rio de Janeiro be honoured at the forthcoming consistory?

Rio is in fact the greater problem for the Holy Father to decide on. The Cistercian Archbishop Orani João Tempesta (60, appointed February 27, 2009) has in his See not one but two Cardinal Archbishops Emeritus: Cardinals de Araújo Sales, who will be 90 in November, and; Cardinal Scheid, who will be 78 in December and who is, therefore, still a cardinal elector.

In New York, Cardinal Ed Egan is 78 and will be 79 next April 2. In London, Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor is 78 and will be 79 next August 24. It may well be, then, that, along with Archbishop Tempesta, one or other or both of their successors ― Archbishops Tim Dolan (60; appointed February 23, 2009) and Vincent Nichols (65 on November 8; April 3, 2009) ― may well be disappointed this time round.

But then again maybe not.

Rio is a huge diocese and Latin America is statistically under-represented in the Sacred College; New York’s Catholics and their generosity are essential to the Church’s finances, and; England (and NOT Westminster) is the Mother of Parliaments and the Anglophone Catholic Churches throughout the developing world do look to her (and to Ireland and to Scotland) for direction and leadership.

So it would be no great surprise if all three were included in the list.

And it should also be remembered that even for Pope Benedict it is not written in stone that a new Archbishop cannot be made a cardinal while his predecessor remains a cardinal elector.

Giacomo Cardinal Biffi, then aged 75½, retired as Archbishop of Bologna on December 16, 2003, and on that same day Msgr Carlo Caffarra was named as his successor. On March 24, 2006, at the first Benedictine consistory Archbishop Caffarra was created cardinal DESPITE the fact that Cardinal Biffi was, aged 78 years, still a cardinal elector. And still very much on the go.

The Archbishops of Italy’s major Sees have always been rewarded with the Sacred Roman Purple at the next consistory after their appointment. These are the Archbishops of Venice (Patriarch), Bologna, Florence, Genoa, Milan, Naples, Palermo and Turin, and the Pope’s Vicar General for the Diocese of Rome. One only has to call to mind the furore caused when Pope Pius XII named Msgr Battista Montini Archbishop of Milan but failed to give him a cardinal’s hat. (That he never held a subsequent third consistory to fill a number of vacancies in the Sacred College is irrelevant. On July 15, 1929, Pius XI held a consistory at which only ONE cardinal was created: Alfredo Ildefonso Schuster OSB, Archbishop of Milan!)

It might well be highly significant that Msgr Cesare Nosiglia (66) was appointed Archbishop of Turin this very week, on Monday, October 11. As with Archbishop Tempesta in Rio de Janeiro, Msgr Nosiglia has two Cardinal Archbishops Emeritus to cope with and, as in Rio, one of them is still a cardinal elector, His Eminence Severino Cardinal Poletto, aged 77.

It might well be that the timing of the announcement of Msgr Nosiglia has a significance similar to that of Archbishop Piacenza’s. Perhaps it has been announced now precisely so that he CAN be created cardinal at this consistory. This would then act as a justification for the inclusion in the list of new cardinals of Archbishops Dolan, Nichols and Tempesta. After all, would it not be highly unfair to include an Italian whose predecessor remains a cardinal elector while excluding on that ground an American, a European and a Latin American?

Another Italian Metropolitan Archbishop, Msgr Giuseppe Betori (63), will also be named cardinal. He was appointed Archbishop of Florence (September 8, 2008) in succession to Ennio Cardinal Antonelli when the latter was appointed President of the Pontifical Council for the Family. (When Cardinal Antonelli was created cardinal in 2003 he received as his titular church San Andrea della Fratte, which had been Cardinal Winning’s church in Rome.)

In the same way that Msgr Betori was appointed because his predecessor had been tapped for service in the Roman Curia, Msgr Braulio Rodriguez Plaza was translated to Toledo when Antonio Cardinal Cañizares Llovera was appointed Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. And so Msgr Rodriguez Plaza will be now be named cardinal.

Poland will likely see two of her prelates honoured: Msgri Józef Kowalczyk, Gniezno, the Primate, and Kazimierz Nycz (60), Warsaw.

Four years after his nomination as Archbishop of Washington DC, Msgr Donald William Wuerl, who will be 70 on November 12, will now receive his red hat, Cardinal McCarrick having turned 80 in July.

Out of Africa, it is expected that Msgr Laurent Monsengwo Pasinya (71), Archbishop of Kinshasa (formerly Leopoldville) Democratic Republic of the Congo, will be elevated. From 1964 to 1970, Monsengwo Pasinya was a student at Rome’s Pontifical Biblical Institute from which he graduated with a doctorate in Biblical Sciences, the first black African ever to do so. He is reputed to be fluent in 14 languages. An indication of his stature within the Church in Africa is the fact that in August of 2008, following the death of the Holy Father’s friend, Bishop Wilhelm Egger of Belzano-Bressanone, Msgr Monsengwo Pasinya was selected to replace him as special secretary to the Synod for Africa held in October of that year.

Need for change: some introductory thoughts

2010-05-06T00:20:00.000-07:00

Msgr John Tracy Ellis was the author of a two-volume life of the legendary James Cardinal Gibbons of Baltimore (pictured above) which according to Msgr. Thomas J. Shelley PhD, priest of the archdiocese of New York and Professor of Historical Theology at Fordham University, “set new standards for clerical biographies and won wide respect among historians”.

Cardinal Gibbons? Legendary? But one example: The story goes that at a dinner party the wife of a wealthy Baltimore businessman, and hence by definition a Protestant, asked the cardinal what he thought of papal infallibility. The cardinal confidentially replied so that the whole table might hear: “All I know, ma’am, is that every time I have met His Holiness he has called me Jibbons!”

In fairness it should be noted that as the second youngest bishop present at the First Vatican Council ― he was known to his fellow American bishops as “the boy bishop”; aged just 34 years and 3 weeks when he was consecrated bishop on 15 August 1868, he was six days younger than Jeremiah Francis Shanahan who had been consecrated Bishop of Harrisburg during the previous month (I don’t know whether it was meant as a joke or not, but on the Twelfth of July) ― he had voted in favour of papal infallibility.

Who can doubt that in this hour of the Church’s need some papal infallibility, or even just good decision making, is urgently required?

As to Msgr Shelley’s comment, he emphatically meant “historians” and not just “Church historians” when he praised Msgr Ellis’s Magnus opus. For Msgr Ellis was an intellectual giant. A big fish in the small pond of American Catholic intellectual life, he was yet a big fish in the big pond of American intellectual life.

Msgr Ellis was a product of a small liberal arts college run by the French-founded teaching order, the Clerics of Saint Viator (a 4th century catechist in Lyons). Obscure before it became defunct in 1939, St Viator College, Bourbonnais, Illinois, was also the alma mater of Servant of God Archbishop Fulton J Sheen. Now granting that decisive and true papal leadership is our prime urgent need, this is one man who should live at this hour. As the Church is beset and beleaguered across and throughout the media and on both sides of the Atlantic, what would we not give for a latter day Fulton J Sheen? (Who, incidentally, studied and taught on both sides of the Atlantic.)

Later, many years after graduating, Msgr Ellis would say: “Had I the power to bring Saint Viator College back into existence, and that with a substantial endowment, for a variety of reasons I should hesitate to do so.” While I wouldn’t say the same about my old school ― Our Lady’s High, Motherwell; and I mean as it was when I was there: selective and all boys ― how many others would say precisely the same about their old Catholic schools? And, of course, we don’t have any Catholic universities in the UK.

Msgr Ellis came to prominence as Professor of American church history at The Catholic University of America, Washington, and as the managing editor of The Catholic Historical Review. He would later move to the University of San Francisco, not entirely for health reasons. In May of 1955, while still resident in Washington, he gave an address which was subsequently published in the autumn issue of the Fordham University quarterly, Thought, under the title “American Catholics and the Intellectual Life.”

Questioning the quality of the education available in Catholic higher education establishments and their fitness for purpose as regards their role in producing an intellectually astute Catholic priesthood and laity, this caused a storm which rages even to the present day, as was evidenced by the recent furore over the president of Notre Dame’s invitation to President Obama to both give the commencement address and to receive an honorary doctorate.

Msgr Ellis took as his starting point a comment of Sir Denis W. Brogan, Glaswegian and Professor of Political Science at Cambridge who was an expert on both French and American political history. Brogan had said in 1941 that “in no Western society is the intellectual prestige of Catholicism lower than in the country where, in such respects as wealth, numbers, and strength of organization, it is so powerful.”

Ellis, more in sorrow than in anger, made two observations on this quote, the first being: “No well-informed American Catholic will attempt to challenge that statement.” Well, I am not an American Catholic but a Scottish one; and, as such, were Brogan’s statement to be uttered today I would challenge it. For nowadays, here in Great Britain the intellectual prestige of Catholicism is absolutely rock bottom.

And in Brogan’s native Scotland it’s even lower.

But I would have to agree with the second of Msgr Ellis’s observation. He went on to aver: “Admittedly, the weakest aspect of the Church in this country lies in its failure to produce national leaders and to exercise commanding influence in intellectual circles…” Of course, I am again thinking of Great Britain and, and most especially, Scotland, and not the USA.

Msgr Ellis returned to his theme in 1966 when he gave another lecture which was later published as an essay entitled “A Commitment to Truth”. Here he quoted with approval from a then little-known German theologian who had been theological advisor to Cardinal Joseph Frings, Archbishop of Cologne, during the Second Vatican Council which had but recently ended. This junior German professor had written that what the Church needed was “not adulators to extol the status quo, but men whose humility and obedience are no less than their passion for truth.”

Ellis, reflecting and expanding on the thoughts of his Teutonic muse, warned that it would be impossible for the Church to realize the wonderful aspirations of the Council “unless her teaching, her intellectual apostolate, her liturgy and worship, yes, and the lives of her sons and daughters, bear a note of authenticity and carry the credentials of truth and honesty.”

Though this was not Msgr Ellis’s concern as he talked and wrote, it would be absolutely no use whatsoever if we had a wonderfully educated, vibrant and committed Catholic laity ― and that was the good Monsignor’s main concern ― if they were to be let down by their Church leadership, the Catholic episcopal hierarchy.

And, to be perfectly honest about it, all these years later here in Great Britain and, and more specifically, in Scotland we are still waiting for our bishops to give a proper lead in that teaching, intellectual apostolate and liturgy and worship in order that we might more fully live a more authentic Catholic Christian life as envisioned by the Council fathers.

But it isn’t all their own fault.

And, thankfully, that then little-known German theologian who inspired Msgr Ellis can do something about this. At the time Msgr Ellis wrote of him in 1966, he was in the process of relocating from Münster to Tübingen. Today he’s getting ready to visit Scotland. For the Rev Fr Dr Joseph Ratzinger is now His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI.

A wiser man than me, Fr Tim Finigan, wrote in his blog (The hermeneutic of continuity): “Through the Sacrament they have received, Bishops are stewards of the Lord’s gift. They are ‘stewards of the mysteries of God’ (I Cor 4: 1); as such, they must be found to be ‘faithful’ and ‘wise’ (cf. Lk 12: 41-48). This requires them to administer the Lord’s gift in the right way, so that it is not left concealed in some hiding place but bears fruit, and the Lord may end by saying to the administrator: ‘Since you were dependable in a small matter I will put you in charge of larger affairs’ (cf. Mt 25: 14-30; Lk 19: 11-27).”

I couldn’t have put it better myself. And to help them, the first thing that the Pope should do is order a reassessment of our diocesan structure. Have we too many bishops? Or too few? How are they selected and trained? Who is due to go and who should come in? And for those who might come in, how can we best use them? Can we improve our metropolitan structure?

But before we can decide where we want to go, might it not be a good idea to ask how we got to where we currently are?

New York Times' Hypocrisy

2010-04-25T03:14:00.000-07:00

Since this is Sunday morning and the world famous Mitchell Library in Glasgow is shut, I had to revert to Google and Wikipedia to learn that the definition of "hypocrisy" is: "the act of persistently professing beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that are inconsistent with one's actions. Hypocrisy is thus a kind of lie."

I refer you to the New York Times' recent abuse of the Catholic Church in general and our beloved Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI in particular.

Living witnesses uninterviewed; documents in languages other than English untranslated; time lines unexplored; opinion vouchedsafe as fact. Everything that would under normal circumstances merit the sack jimmied on to the front page.

And yet today I read:

"April 24, 2010, 2:58 PM
Criminal Charges Possible in the Case of the Lost iPhone
By NICK BILTON"

However all due respect was accorded the United States legal system:

"According to people familiar with the investigation, who would not speak on the record because of the potential legal case..."

"Gawker’s chief operating officer, said via e-mail late Friday that the organization had not been contacted by law enforcement officials, and declined to speak further on any legal aspects. Apple also declined to comment."

What happened to respect for the legal case when the Catholic Church was a party to both potential and active legal actions?

Pope Benedict falsely accused

2010-03-29T02:00:00.000-07:00

Nicholas Kulish and Katrin Bennhold (The New York Times of 25 March) were quite emphatic in their opening: “The future Pope Benedict XVI,” they asserted “was kept more closely apprised of a sexual abuse case in Germany than previous church statements have suggested, raising fresh questions about his handling of a scandal unfolding under his direct supervision before he rose to the top of the church’s hierarchy.”

The then Cardinal Archbishop of Munich and Freising “was copied on a memo that informed him that a priest, whom he had approved sending to therapy in 1980 to overcome paedophilia, would be returned to pastoral work within days of beginning psychiatric treatment.”

All quite clear?

Just to make it absolutely crystal clear, they spell it out in black and white: “But the memo, whose existence was confirmed by two church officials, shows that the future pope not only led a meeting on Jan. 15, 1980, approving the transfer of the priest, but was also kept informed about the priest’s reassignment.”

But what is this followed by? Well, equivocation seems an appropriate word: “What part he played in the decision making, and how much interest he showed in the case of the troubled priest, who had molested multiple boys in his previous job, remains unclear.”

Straws are then clutched: “But the personnel chief who handled the matter from the beginning, the Rev. Friedrich Fahr, ‘always remained personally, exceptionally connected’ to Cardinal Ratzinger, the church said.”

“(T)he church said.” Now who exactly would that be? We are not told.

Attribution, though, is not entirely absent for the very next paragraph is based on an interview with a named archdiocesan official. The authors write: “Church officials defend Benedict by saying the memo was routine and was ‘unlikely to have landed on the archbishop’s desk,’ according to the Rev. Lorenz Wolf, judicial vicar at the Munich Archdiocese.”

Got that? It was “unlikely” that the memo landed on Cardinal Ratzinger’s desk. So they have no story. If this were meant to be a piece of fair and unbiased reportage it would be game, set and match to Papa Ratzi. But it was never meant to be that. And so we are next told: “But Father Wolf said he could not rule out that Cardinal Ratzinger had read it.”

Fr Wolf believed it to be “unlikely” but he couldn’t be absolutely one hundred percent certain. In criminal trials the burden of proof is “beyond reasonable doubt” and in civil cases it is the less exacting standard of “balance of probability”. Fr Wolf’s evidence doesn’t come anywhere near to swinging the balance of probability against the Holy Father’s defenders.

Indeed, we are told that “According to Father Wolf, who spoke with Father Gruber this week at the request of The New York Times, Father Gruber, the former vicar general, said that he could not remember a detailed conversation with Cardinal Ratzinger about Father Hullermann…”

In the interests of determining where the balance of probability lies, in the interests of fairness, the authors then point out: “but (that) Father Gruber refused to rule out that ‘the name had come up.’” Note that: he “refused” to rule it out, according to them. But is it not more likely that if we were to see the contemporaneous notes, if there are any, then in English translation what he probably had said was more along the lines of “can’t in all honesty absolutely” rule it out.

But to report it in that way, honestly, would require what is evidenced by its total absence: honesty.

Children, Schools and Families Bill

2010-02-25T01:23:00.000-08:00

The committee tasked with examining the Children, Schools and Families Bill in its response stated in part: “We welcome the requirement that the Secretary of State set out specific entitlements which pupils and parents are entitled to expect from their school. However, we have some concerns about the details of the plans. We recommend that the Secretary of State ensures that the entitlements fully reflect the relevant international human rights standards concerning the child’s right to education and the rights of parents in relation to their children’s education.”

What are these “relevant international human rights”?

Principal amongst them are those enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights and the Protocols thereto. Section 1 of the ECHR provides at:

Article 8:
(1) Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
(2) There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Article 9:
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
(2) Freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief shall be subject only to the limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Article 12:
Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to form a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.

Article 13:
Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

Article 14:
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any grounds such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, birth or other status.

Article 15:
In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its obligations under this Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law.

The Substantive Protocols to the Convention provide:

1. Protocol No.1, 20 March 1952
Article (1):
Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provision shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.

Article (2):
No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.

It is apparent that this last provision is of paramount importance. I believe that the Government's determination to dictate to "Faith Schools" what they must teach in relation to HSE is ultra vires and can be successfully contested at law. Having adopted the European Human Rights into British law even measures passed by Parliament are subject to the test of compatibility with ECHR and this plainly ain't!

Christians being persecuted I

2010-01-25T01:20:00.000-08:00

Oxford Blue, Roman Purple: Cardinal William Theodore Heard

2010-01-22T01:52:00.000-08:00

What follows came about as the result of a happy coincidence, or, rather, a happy sequence of coincidences. I was engaged in researching some material relating to a wholly separate matter - the workings of the Education (Scotland) Act of 1918 - when, on trawling through the 1960 issues of The Glasgow Herald, I came across an article which, although of no relevance to the matter at hand, nonetheless grabbed my attention. This article reported the appointment of Monsignor Gerard M Rogers as an auditor, judge, of the Vatican’s Sacred Roman Rota Appeals Tribunal. I attended Our Lady of Good Aid Cathedral Primary School, Park Street,Motherwell, where Mgr Rogers had been a frequent visitor in his role as Parish Priest of Motherwell’s Cathedral Parish.

Moreover, in the 1960s, as a youth growing up in the North Forgewood housing scheme in Motherwell, I had come to know His Eminence Thomas Joseph Cardinal Winning. His Eminence had for a time been Parish Priest of St Luke’s, Forgewood, following his return to his home diocese from Rome, where he had served as Spiritual Director to the students of the Scots College. His return had been occasioned by his appointment as Vicar Episcopal and Officialis under His Lordship Francis Thomson, Bishop of Motherwell. To his dying day Cardinal Winning regarded this appointment as being fortuitous. Not only was he able to renew his love affair with Glasgow Celtic Football Club, but he was also permitted to enjoy at first hand, in early middle age yet still a Bhoy at heart, their greatest ever season, 1966-67. Ecclesiastic authority enabled him to actively participate from his seat in the stand as his beloved Glasgow Celtic won every domestic competition. There is also the no small matter that this was the season in which they became the first British team to win the European Cup!

His Eminence had been a junior colleague of Mgr Rogers before going to Rome ― the good Monsignor was Vicar General of the diocese and Fr Tom was the Bishop’s Secretary. While in Rome, apart from fulfilling his duties in the Scots College, the future cardinal had studied at the Rota studuum, a sort of post-Doctoral Law Faculty run by the judges of the Rota to train consistorial advocates. He qualified as an Advocate of the Sacred Roman Rota (Adv SRR) in 1965. After coming to St Luke’s, one Sunday after twelve o’clock Mass the then Fr Winning discussed with me Mgr Rogers’s work in the Vatican and how he had come to be appointed. This discussion arose as a result of an article appearing that morning in one of the Sunday newspaper colour supplements. In it was quoted an unidentified, but all-too-easily identifiable, curial priest. In ruefully ironic terms, this curialist discussed having been taken away from his parish work and summoned to Rome having been identified by the Vatican as a particularly well-qualified lawyer. This was obviously Mgr Rogers possessor of the triple doctorate from the Gregoriana: in Canon Law, Philosophy, and Divinity; in addition while working as a priest he had obtained a Bachelor of Law degree from the University of Glasgow.

Although I was already aware of the existence of Cardinal Heard ― in 1960 while on holiday in Scotland and staying with his friend, the then Bishop James Donald Scanlan 9this was before JDS became Archbishop of Glasgow) His Eminence paid a visit to Our Lady of Good Aid Cathedral Primary School, Motherwell, in the company of Mgr Scanlan and he visited and spoke to my class ― it was in the course of this conversation that I first become aware of how eminent and influential within the Vatican the Cardinal had been. Mgr Rogers’s appointment to the Tribunal had, apparently, been secured through Cardinal Heard’s good offices. In the course of an interview kindly granted to me by Cardinal Winning early in the preparation of this work, His Eminence made it plain that Cardinal Heard had secured Mgr Rogers’s appointment in the face of attempts by a person or persons unknown, but presumably either a member of the Scottish hierarchy or someone with great influence within it, to block it. However, His Eminence would not go into any detail.

Over the years I learned a little more about Cardinal Heard, most especially from University friends who had been students at the Scots College in Rome. Among these former candidates for the priesthood, the late Cardinal enjoyed a reputation as a “bit of a character”. They recalled most especially his visits to the College on the feast day of Scotland’s patron, St Andrew. Whilst it would not be right in what is after all intended to be a serious work to retail any of the stories these Old Boys of the Scots College related to me, they engendered a certain curiosity about His Eminence. I formed a vague determination to find out, some time, more about this little-known Prince of the Church.

Years later, on reading the various newspaper reports and comments upon the announcement of Cardinal Winning’s elevation,I was struck by the fact that although there were references to Cardinals Beaton and Erskine in many of the articles published at the time, there was a total absence of any reference whatsoever to Cardinal Heard. It seemed to me that Cardinal Heard had become Scotland’s “forgotten cardinal”. Too ill at the time to seek to redress this lamentable state of affairs, the accidental discovery of the report in The Glasgow Herald about the appointment to the Rota of His Eminence’s protégé, Mgr Rogers, reawakened my interest. I hope that his modest effort might help to raise awareness of this Scottish, Protestant-born, rugby playing, dance loving, rowing Blue who went on to take part as the only Cardinal Elector from Great Britain (but not from what is customarily but debatably referred to as the British Isles) in the conclave which elected Giovanni Battista Montini, Pope Paul VI .

New Year's Resolution

2010-01-07T02:21:00.001-08:00

I have decided that I am going to try to to keep this blog thing going. It is not quite a case of "Si monumentum requiris, circumspice" but it does seem a pity not to try, especially now someone has actually asked about it!

Just as an experiment, here is a photo of my favourite Cardinal, His Eminence Estanislao Esteban Cardinal Karlic, who I met in St Peter's Basilica on the Monday after this was taken at his induction into the Sacred College.

An Open Letter to Cardinal O'Brien

2009-06-19T16:54:00.000-07:00

This was published in the Scottish Catholic Observer, 19 June 2009

Eminence

Choirs and, and most especially, their choirmasters are the unsung heroes of the Catholic Church.

I recall 1964, the year in which I celebrated my twelfth birthday, as a series of red letter days, a truly marvellous year. And the marvellocity really began a couple of weeks before my birthday when I sang as a soprano at midnight Mass on Easter Sunday, March 29, in the choir of Our Lady of Good Aid Cathedral, Motherwell, then directed by Fr, now Canon, Kieran O’Farrell.

On Easter Monday morning, the boys of the choir, augmented by a group of basses and tenors recruited from Our Lady’s High School Senior Choir, went to London to take part in a concert in Westminster Cathedral organised by the British section of Pueri Cantores, the organisation of Boys’ Choirs of the Catholic Cathedrals. Well, some of them.

I don’t know if it is true, but I would like to think that the success of that concert, and the publicity it generated, contributed early in the year following to the International Federation of Pueri Cantores being erected as “a moral person”, that is an officially recognised foundation within the Catholic Church, by a decree of Clemente Cardinal Micara, the Pope’s Vicar General for the Diocese of Rome, dated January 25, 1965.

That I have remained true to the Faith gifted to me by my parents ― albeit I am a Catholic much in need of practice ― is in no small measure due to those disciplined but very happy hours spent every week over several years in the organ loft of the Cathedral; and the many more hours necessarily spent in the rehearsal room in St Bride’s Hall.

Are you aware, Eminence, that next year, on March 2, we will celebrate the 200th anniversary of the birth of Scotland’s Papal Patron: Vincenzo Gioacchino Raffaele Luigi Pecci, Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903)? Do you recall that that good man’s very first official act, on the morning of Monday, March 4, 1878, the day following his coronation, was to issue the Apostolic Letter Ex supremo Apostolatus apice?

Addressed to his Venerable and Dear Brothers in Christ, the Bishops of Scotland on their Ad Limina Visit, in that letter Leo wrote in part: “What, therefore, our predecessor (Pope Pius IX) was hindered by death from bringing to a conclusion, God, who is plentiful in mercy and glorious in all his works has granted us to effect, so that we might, as it were, inaugurate with a happy omen our Pontificate, which in these calamitous times we have received with trembling.”

That “happy omen” was, of course, the restoration of our Scottish Catholic Episcopal Hierarchy of which you, Eminence, are now President.

No sooner had Papa Pecci set to his apostolic work than he started to receive earnest entreaties from a very large number of the members of the Sacred College of Cardinals acting jointly, severally and together. Strangely, they were not seeking favours for themselves, or, for this much loved nephew, or, for that old friend. No, what they all wanted was for the Pope to do something that would give himself great pleasure, but which his sense of propriety would not normally have allowed him to countenance.

They all wanted the new Pope to make his older brother a Cardinal.

And so humbly accepting the counsel of his cardinals, on May 12, 1879, at his first consistory, Pope Leo XIII raised his big brother, Giuseppe, to the cardinalatial dignity. He was number 7 in that first list of triskaidekaleonine cardinals (next, at number 8, was the soon-to-be Blessed and Doctor of the Church, John Henry Cardinal Newman, patron of the High School my four children attended here in Bellshill).

Papa Pecci went on to create a total of 147 cardinals. The Popes of the 20th century would add another 640 and our present Holy Father 38 so far. (As you may well know, Eminence, I think there may be seven more cardinal electors named in November.) 818 cardinals after his nomination, Giuseppe Pecci remains the last member of a Pope’s family to be created cardinal.

However, unlike some who preceded him, Fr Giuseppe Pecci SJ entirely deserved his elevation. Not only was he the leading Thomistic theologian of his day, it was also as a direct result of his work that the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917 made a study of the works of St Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor, an absolute requirement in the preparation for the priesthood. (This may very well be the sole example in ecclesiastical history of a Jesuit helping out God’s Dogs, the Dominicans.)

Of course, since the days of Leo XIII and his brother the Sacred College of Cardinals has undergone some significant changes.

Firstly, at Good Pope John’s first consistory (December 15, 1958) the limit of 70 cardinals, in place for almost 400 years, was breached. Next, Paul VI removed the right to vote in conclave from those cardinals who had attained their 80th birthday. He subsequently limited the size of the College of Cardinal Electors to 120. Finally, John Paul II’s second consistory saw the introduction of the practice of appointing to the cardinalatial dignity priests or prelates who had already attained their 80th birthday and who therefore could not vote in a conclave.

Of course, many observers regard these elevations of venerably aged clerics as being for purely honorific purposes. However, Eminence, as you are in a better position than most to realise, this is far from being the case. Apart from becoming trusted papal counsellors who can, for example, take an active part in all the proceedings leading up to the cry of “extra omnes” at a conclave, the appointment of each of these particularly distinguished cardinals always sends out a message “pour encourager les autres”. But in the nicest possible way!

To see who the others needing encouragement are, one needs to look at the background of those already honoured in this way. Some are hard to categorise and many fit into several categories: eight were Jesuits, two Dominicans and one a Franciscan; two were Patriarchs of Eastern Rite Churches; three had suffered imprisonment for the faith and another three the next best thing, they were former Nuncios; four were exceptional archbishops emeritus of outstanding pastoral zeal; another three were Rectors of Pontifical educational institutes in Rome, and; six were eminent theologians. One, Gustaaf Canon Joos, judicial vicar of the Belgian Diocese of Ghent, seems to have been honoured simply as a close personal friend of Pope John Paul himself.

None was honoured for his commitment to sacred music. And sacred music, as you well know Eminence, is dear to Pope Benedict’s heart. He recently said of one particular work and its performance: “In it we can say that music truly becomes prayer, an abandonment of the heart to God with a profound sense of peace.”

Choirs, and most especially Cathedral choirs, the world over strive to make “music truly become prayer”. Is that really and truly any less worthy of recognition than academic excellence in theology or philosophy or canon law or patristic studies or exegesis or sacred liturgy? And yet all of these are lauded amongst those twenty-seven distinguished venerably aged priests and prelates who have already been honoured with “the majesty of the Roman purple”.

Since you are, Eminence, Cardinal Archbishop in those wee bits hill and glen which should forever and honourably be most closely associated with Pope Leo XIII, I ask you to invite your Eminent Brothers in the Sacred College of Cardinals to mark the forthcoming bicentenary of the birth of that great and good man by petitioning the Holy Father to name cardinal his brother, Monsignor Georg Ratzinger, in recognition of his magnificent contribution to sacred music as chorus master of the Cathedral Choir of St Peter’s, Regensburg, for just over thirty years from February 1964.

That choir is reckoned to be the oldest in Christendom, having celebrated its millennium in 1976 when Msgr Georg was named an Honorary Prelate by Pope John Paul II (who in 1994 advanced him to Protonotary Apostolic).

Under Monsignor Georg’s direction, this world-renowned member choir of Pueri Cantores recorded numerous masterpieces: Bach’s Christmas Oratorio and his Motettes and Schütz’s Psalms of David to name but three classics. Every year they toured Germany and they also undertook international concert tours to, amongst others: the USA, Canada, Japan, Taiwan, Poland, Hungary and Ireland. Needless to say they also sang in the Vatican.

I only got to perform in Westminster Cathedral. But most choir members don’t even get that far. A red hat for Msgr Georg Ratzinger will make all of our sacrifices seem that much more worthwhile. I hope and believe the Very Reverend Kieran Canon O’Farrell would agree.

And like Giuseppe Pecci, Georg Ratzinger entirely deserves it. Irrespective of who his wee brother is!

Orrabestorratime,

Hughie

The start of the Third Christian Millenium

2008-11-20T01:45:00.000-08:00

It was a guid New Year on 1 January 2000, but it was neither a guid New Century nor a guid New Millennium.

Of course, to determine when the New Millennium was to properly start, we need not have bothered with historical precedent as revealed between the pages of venerably aged copies of relatively ancient editions of still extant newspapers and periodicals. Nor need we have referred to Papal Bulls of yore. Commonsense alone should have dictated that just as one century could not begin until the previous one had ended, so, too, could the Third Millennium not begin until the Second had run its true course.

When might we have expected that to be? Well, if you could do the counting it was dead simple really: “…one thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine, two thousand, two thousand and one, two thousand and two…” Yes, that bit between “two thousand” and “two thousand and one”, that was we were waiting for. Or, rather, should have been.

If you did not like being blinded by the science of computation (one is embarrassed in these circumstances to give it its proper name, arithmetic); if, to put none too fine a point on it, your lap-top or desk-top computer had rendered you numerically illiterate (?) by dint of want of cerebration, then perhaps a more pedantic, historic approach might not so much have been preferred, as have been the only one that might just possibly have convinced.

Since our calendar is a Papal invention (or at least commission, as, indeed, was its predecessor), what did the Holy See have to say about the dawning of the New Millennium?

Well, it must be remembered that the Holy Father and the Church are concerned primarily with matters spiritual. Millennium bugs, or any other bugs, and the depredations which may befall society as a result of their pernicious activities, are not of prime importance to the Holy Father, the Apostolic Penitentiary, the Holy Office (of old), the Sacred College of Cardinals, the Roman curia, or national hierarchies. Thus, on Advent Sunday, 29 November 1998, when the Papal Bull, Incarnationis mysterium, was promulgated in St Peter’s Basilica, the Holy Father’s thoughts were not directed to matters related to the Y2K problem or, really, to when the civil authorities should celebrate the New Millennium, but to how the faithful might the more readily and joyfully enter into the Kingdom.

In this Bull the Holy Father designated the year 2000 as The Great Jubilee Year 2000 and decreed that it begin on Christmas Eve, 24 December 1999, in accordance with custom long ago established by Pope Boniface VIII for the first Holy Year, in 1300. That Christmas Eve would represent, according to our calendar, which is the only one by which we can regulate our lives in the present day, the one thousand nine hundred and ninety-ninth anniversary of the eve of the birth of Christ, our Lord and Saviour, at Bethlehem. The following Christmas, 25 December 2000, would represent the two thousandth anniversary of His birth. Any document issued between those dates over the late, Venerable, Holy Father’s signature would (did) close with a formula of words such as: “Given in Rome, at St Peter’s, on (date), (Feast), in the year of our Lord 2000, the twenty-second of my Pontificate.”

Christmas Day 2000 marked the opening of the Third Christian Millennium. And God Bless Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II! For, she (during her Christmas Day broadcast) was the only public figure in this country who acknowledged that fact. The anticipation of that fact was why Incarnationis mysterium, the Bull of Indiction of the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000, was addressed to “all the Faithful journeying towards the Third Millennium”.

However, to emphasise that fact the Holy Year, the Year of Indulgence, the Great Jubilee Year 2000, was to not officially end then, but on the Feast of the Epiphany, 6 January 2001. This was in recognition of that Feats Day’s great symbolic importance as the two thousandth anniversary of the Christ Child being revealed to the Gentiles in the personages of the Magi (whether they be the Three of the Western Church, or, the Twelve of our Eastern brethren).

In consequence, therefore, according to the Church, the New Millennium could only begin, as far as the civil calendar was concerned, on 1 January 2001.

But let us not bother too much about Rome, after all, few of our neighbours do. What has heretofore been the practice in Great Britain when it comes to the ends of centuries? A look at some newspapers from the first days of 1901 tells us all we need to know.

The Times of New Year’s Day, Tuesday, 1 January 1901, ran an everyday item called “To-day’s arrangements” with a far from everyday sub-heading: “The Twentieth Century begins”. The first two notices indicated that the Anglican Church intended to welcome-in the Twentieth Century in some style:

“Service at St Paul’s Cathedral to welcome the New Century:
The Dean of Windsor preaches.
Twentieth Century Services in Canterbury Cathedral:
The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of Ripon, and Dean Farrar will preach.”

The Presbyterian Church north of the border had, of course, already welcomed-in the New Century in the traditional manner by holding Watch Night services across the land on Hogmanay. The Scotsman on New Year’s Day, reported on the traditional service held at the Tron Church. The Rev Archibald Fleming had told his congregation that the 19th Century had been one characterised by “exact thought” and that “the outcome of exact thought had been a rapid series of wonderful discoveries, for accuracy of knowledge was always the condition of progress; invention was never born of chaos… After the shock and conflict of a hundred years, one figure stood forth unshaken in historic definiteness and unrivalled dominance ― the figure of Christ.” The close of each century “was, therefore, always a time of quiet but exultant triumph to Christians.”

There followed an account of the service at St Giles’s Cathedral conducted by the Rev Dr Cameron Lees. He told his congregation they “were met in unwonted circumstances… (standing) on the boundary not only between two years, but also between two centuries… it (was) easier to grasp the moral and spiritual significance of 365 days than of 100 years.”

The celebrations of the dawn of the New Century by the Catholic Church in England and Wales and in Scotland went unreported in the mainstream press. Traditionally, of course, for the Catholic Church the year ends in the moments preceding the start of Midnight Mass at Christmas (although some, thirled to the liturgical cycle, would argue that it ends at midnight on the eve of the First Sunday of Advent).

However, we learn from The Glasgow Observer and Catholic Herald of Saturday, 5 January 1901, that throughout the archdiocese of Glasgow the New Century had been welcomed in by packed congregations at Midnight Masses celebrated, according to the wishes of Archbishop Charles Peter Eyre, in every church.

In Glasgow’s St Andrew’s Cathedral on Clyde Street the celebrant was Fr JW McCarthy. At St Saviours “the New Century was brought in with the Missa Cantata sung by Fr Louis de Backer, Coran Sanctissimo. Benediction was given after the last Mass on New Year’s Day and the Te Deum and Veni Creator were sung in accordance with the wish expressed in the circular issued by His Grace the Archbishop”. At St Alphonsus’ the Missa Cantata was sung by Fr Scannell, while at St Mary’s “the Pope’s Encyclical on Jesus Christ the Redeemer was read on Sunday to the congregation. High Mass was sung at Midnight on Monday to usher in the New Century, and it was well attended.”

Activities involving the Catholic Church occurring in Rome were reported on New Years Day by both The Glasgow Herald and The Scotsman. Indeed, the very first news story carried by The Glasgow Herald on the first day of the 20th Century concerned the closing of the Holy Door of St Peter’s Basilica by Pope Leo XIII on Christmas Day, during the previous week. Under the headline “The Sacred Door Closed”, dateline Rome, 25 December 1900, from “an occasional correspondent”, it was reported:

“It is something to see what no-one has seen for 75 years. Although technically the Holy Year should occur every quarter of a century, the political circumstances of 1850 and 1875 made a Pontifical function impossible. The last celebration was in 1825, when Leo XII, with great pomp, opened and closed the Holy Door of St Peter's as a symbol of the beginning and end of the Year of Indulgence. Among the spectators of the 1825 function was a certain Gioacchino Pecci, an unknown boy in his 16th year, to whom it has fallen, as Leo XIII, to officiate at the closing of the 19th Century.”

The Scotsman under the headline “British Pilgrims at Rome”, dateline Rome, 31 December 1900, from Reuters, reported that the British Jubilee pilgrims, including the Duke of Norfolk, had met at the Hotel Rome and decided to commence their Jubilee tour of the basilicas on 2 January. The British pilgrims were to attend the Midnight Mass in St Peter’s to be celebrated by Cardinal Rampolla (Mariano, the Marchese del Tindarro, Cardinal Secretary of State) to welcome in the New Century.

The Glasgow Observer and Catholic Herald of 12 January 1901 noted that Dr Lapponi, the Papal Physician, had deemed the Holy Father too unwell to officiate at this public Midnight Mass, but had given him permission to celebrate one in his private chapel.

What of the civil authorities and the general public, did they recognise 1 January 1901, as the start of a New Century?

The Scotsman of 2 January reported: “The great Scottish holiday which ushered in 1901 and the beginning of the 20th Century… was celebrated in a hearty and rational fashion in Edinburgh.” It also tells us of an “inaugural breakfast” hosted by the directors of the Glasgow branch of the Young Men’s Christian Association presided over by the honorary president, Lord Provost Chisholm. The Lord Provost extended his “warmest greetings” to those present on that “new morning, of a new day, of a new year, of a new century which has so calmly dawned upon us.”

The Glasgow Herald observed that in Glasgow “the advent of the New Century was observed in the customary way.” Alas for posterity, no details of this “customary way” were given, but it may safely be assumed that spirituous liquor was consumed.

What of abroad?

The Times of 1 January 1901 reported:

“At 2 o’clock yesterday afternoon (that is 31 December 1900) ― that being equivalent of midnight in Australia ― the Australian flag was hoisted at the Mansion House by order of the Lord Mayor as an indication that the new century had begun in Australia and the new Commonwealth had been inaugurated. At the same time the bells of Bow Church were peeled.”

It then went on to relate how the Agent-General for New South Wales had colourfully decorated his office in Victoria Street, Westminster, with the flags of the six federating colonies and their various shields.

The Scotsman of the following day also noted the inauguration of the new Commonwealth: “Enter with a New Century, a new Commonwealth on the stage of history. Australia which a hundred years ago had hardly had its outline traced upon the map…”

It should be noted that the referendum in Australia (1999) was carefully timed such that if it had resulted in a vote for a Republic, which it did not, there was plenty of time to organise matters so that the Republic would formally have come into being on 1 January 2001, exactly 100 years after the establishment of the Commonwealth of Australia, on 1 January, 1901. The symbolism was exquisite. Just as the creation of the Commonwealth of Australia had welcomed in a New Century, the 20th Century, so, too, would the formation of the Republic of Australia have heralded a New Century, the 21st. But it would also not simply have marked the beginning of a new era for Australia, but a New Millennium for the world!

On the same page on which The Scotsman referred to the new Commonwealth of Australia, it went on to note that closer to home: “Spain has celebrated the beginning of a New Century by adopting Greenwich time…” And in Paris on New Year’s Eve, President Laubert had received the Diplomatic Corps led by its Dean, the Papal Nuncio, Mgr Lorenzelli. Archbishop (later Cardinal) Lorenzelli in his remarks had said that at the close of the 19th Century he wished to express his desire for a “strengthening of the bonds of fraternity between peoples…”

What had happened at the dawn of previous centuries, when had they been celebrated?

On New Year’s Day, 1901, The Glasgow Herald’s London Correspondent quoted a line from a poem, “The Passing of the Century”, written by the Poet Laureate, Mr Alfred Austen, whom he described as being “blessed with a host of critics”: “I was here as I died, amid wrath and smoke,
When the war wains rolled and the cannons spoke.” The correspondent went on to observe:

“These lines reminded me of an article I was reading the other day in a time-worn copy of a London newspaper published on the 1st of January, 1801. ‘At the beginning of a new year, and the opening of a new century, it would have been grateful,’ said the leader writer, ‘to have announced the return of peace. A period of time which has in itself something august and solemn, and from which the British Empire in particular derives, as it were, new auspices and new inauguration, seemed to want only this blessing to have rendered it venerable and famed in the eyes of mankind.’”

While he made no mention of the name of the London newspaper, it seems most likely that it was in fact The Times.

How much more venerable and famed might we not have been destined to be in the eyes of our descendents if we had but managed to actually welcome in the New Millennium at its proper time, on its due date? Which was not quite yet when we did, but a year later. Unless, of course, like many you did both.

Pope John XXIII

2008-11-11T03:13:00.000-08:00

On the morning of Sunday, October 12, 1958, the mayor of Venice led a contingent of notables, clerical and lay, gathered on the platform of the new Stazione Ferroviaría Santa Lucia to see off His Eminence Angelo Giuseppe Cardinal Roncalli, aged 76 years, the accidental Patriarch of Venice bound for Rome and the conclave to elect a successor to Pope Pius XII. The Mayor fully expected to welcome him back a few weeks later.

In the consistory of February 1953, Pius elevated four of his nuncios to the Sacred purple: Gaetano Cicognani, Spain, later Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for Rites and pro-Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura; Pietro Ciriaci, Portugal, later Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of the Council; Francesco Borgongini Duca, Italy, later an official of Propaganda Fide who died in the following year; and, Angelo Roncalli, (France).

When the list of 24 new cardinals was announced on 29 November, 1952, among their number was Carlo Agostini, Patriarch of Venice (since February 5, 1949). Sadly, His Excellency died (on 28 December) of complications from Parkinson’s disease before receiving his red hat. (India’s Valerian Gracias, 52, Archbishop of Bombay, was added to the list becoming that country’s first ever cardinal.)

When Nuncio Roncalli’s elevation had been announced, President Vincent Auriol of France, an erstwhile anti-clerical socialist, claimed the ancient privilege of the Head of State of a Catholic country and so presented him with his red hat in the Elysee Palace.

A year earlier, a bit of the personality which was to so capture the imagination of the world, and not just the Catholic world, was demonstrated when Nuncio Roncalli, Doyen of the Corps Diplomatique, led the corps in presenting their traditional best wishes to President Auriol on New Year’s Day, 1952. The President related what happened in a statement issued when Good Pope John died in June 1963: “On New Year’s Day of 1952, mindful of my disputes with the mayor and parish priest of my town, he gave me as a present a book by Giovanni Guareschi, The Little World of Don Camillo, with these words on the flyleaf: To Monsieur Vincent Auriol, president of the French Republic, for his amusement and for his spiritual profit, from J. Roncalli, Apostolic Nuncio.”

Of course, French pride would only be satisfied should their Nuncio receive a suitable, lofty appointment upon his elevation. Customarily, Nuncios newly elevated were allowed a bit of a sabbatical before taking up new duties in the Roman Curia. Carlo Agostini’s death in Venice ensured that French pride would not be hurt by a much delayed, minor Vatican appointment; which, apparently, was exactly what had been in store for Angelo Roncalli: a sinecure to see out his remaining days.

When Patriarch Angelo departed Venice bound for Rome and the conclave aboard the 9.40 train, he had in his pocket a return ticket. However, as soon as he found himself in Rome, he also found himself being talked of by at least some of his brother cardinal electors as a strong candidate in the succession stakes. Cardinals Cicognani (above), Maurilio Fossati, Archbishop of Turin, and Elia Dalla Costa, Archbishop of Florence, were principal among those who favoured Roncalli’s candidacy.

For reasons known only to himself, Pius XII had held only two consistories for the naming of new cardinals during his almost twenty year long pontificate. By the time of his death there were only 53 cardinals and two of those died before the conclave opened. Thus, there were nineteen cardinal electors less than the maximum of 70 allowed under the Apostolic Constitution. Of that 51, 24 were older than Cardinal Roncalli!

On the afternoon of 28 October, feast day of the Holy Apostles Saints Simon and Jude, the third day of the conclave, at ten minutes to five the cardinal scrutineers announced that Cardinal Roncalli had secured 38 of the 51 available votes and so under the Apostolic Constitution, providing he accepted election, the senior Cardinal Deacon could declare “Habemus papam” from the central loggia, balcony, on the front of St Peter’s Basilica.

Accepting election and choosing to reign as John XXIII, the new Pope began his pontificate as he intended to go on. Before the members of the Sacred College dispersed from the Sistine Chapel, the new Vicar of Christ did something which had once been traditional but had been abandoned in recent times. He took his red zucchetto (skullcap) which obviously he would no longer need, and placed it on the head of Msgr Alberto di Jorio, who had served as Secretary to the Conclave. His Holiness thereby created him cardinal. He was to be the first of many.

Pope John’s first consistory, the first for almost six years, began on Monday, 15 December. Since one of the new cardinals was to be Mgr André Jullien, retiring Dean of the Sacred Roman Rota (another revived tradition), he should have been succeeded in that position by the vice Dean, the next most senior auditor by length of service. However, that poor man was terminally ill and in no position to accept the job. And so the Deanship fell to the next most senior judge, a proud Scotsman: Mgr William Theodore Heard MA (Oxon), DCL, PhD, DD.

By naming 23 new Cardinals, Pope John swept away four hundred years of tradition. It was not the actual number of cardinals created which destroyed the tradition, but the fact that they took the total number to 74. This exceeded the limit of 70 set by Pope Sixtus V in 1586, a total which was in practice seldom, if ever, reached.

Under that Sixtine disposition the Sacred College was to consist of, as a maximum: 6 Cardinal Bishops, 50 Cardinal Priests and 14 Cardinal Deacons. These latter were priests associated with the various administrative offices of the Vatican, the so-called cardinals in curia, and they were not bishops. Indeed, until the 1917 Code of Canon Law came into effect the cardinals deacon did not even need to be priests, although they did have to be in minor orders. Incidentally, according to that same Code of Canon Law, His Holiness should not have created one of the cardinals: Amletto Giovanni Cicognani, long time Nuncio to the USA, had a brother Gaetano (above) who was already a cardinal. The rules relating to the prevention of nepotism preclude two close relatives being cardinals at the same time, but since the Pope willed it…

Since John XXIII was choosing as one of his first acts to abrogate this Sixtine disposition, he decided to state clearly why he was doing so. Generally the new cardinals were being created in order to “(meet) the needs of a growing Church” and to “lighten the duties of the Roman curia”. He wished to create a situation in which “authority could be delegated”. He added that he “also had in mind that the very grave duties ― and in certain cases multiple duties ― incumbent upon some of you in the City of Rome might be lightened to some extent.”

His Holiness was considering not only the age and health of some of the members of the Sacred College but ― “and this was foremost in our mind” ― that the Roman Curia might be better able to expedite the matters referred to it. This, he believed, would be for the good not only of the Vatican and its staff, but also for the Universal Church. He also indicated that this was not to be his last word on the matter and that more elevations were likely. He said: “There are many others whom we have in our mind and heart and whom we judge most worthy of the same honour and whom we hope to honour at a future date with the same lofty dignity.”

The problem was that there were not enough titular churches in the Eternal City to go round; but that would soon be rectified.

The Beijing Olympics having now passed and the persecution of the Church having been resumed on its very last day with the arrest of a Bishop, it is worth recalling that in this his first major public utterance as Pope, Blessed John also launched a scathing attack on the Chinese communist government for its persecution of the church, of its missionaries, bishops, priests and people.

Perhaps Good Pope John was influenced in making these remarks by the death during the sede vacante of an old friend, Cardinal Costantini. In August 1922, Archbishop Celso Benigno Luigi Costantini was sent by Pope Pius XI to China as first Apostolic Delegate, serving there until 1933. He called the first Chinese Episcopal conference in Shanghai in 1924, which established a constitution for the mission to China, founded several regional major seminaries, and helped found the Fu Jen Catholic University. To the great delight of Pius XI, he brought six native Chinese priests to Rome for Episcopal ordination on 26 October 1926 in St Peter’s. (They are often described as the “first Chinese bishops”, but this is not correct. The Dominican, Msgr Lo Wen-tsao O.P. was both the first Chinese to be ordained priest, 1654, and bishop, 1685.)

As he drew his consistorial remarks to a close, His Holiness said: “It is our wish that our admonitions should reach also those who taking over the places and Sees of sacred pastors by unlawful means have unfortunately paved the way for a deplorable schism. This word ‘schism’ as we utter it seems almost to burn our lips and wound our heart. We cannot but beseech God that in His mercy he may avert such a calamity as is now threatening the Catholic community of China.”

Ironically, shortly thereafter, by announcing his intention to call a Council, Good Pope John found himself being accused from within his own curia of fomenting schism. He announced his decision to summon a Council when, on January 25, 1959, he addressed a group of eighteen cardinals gathered at St Paul’s Outside-the-Walls to mark the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. A communiqué issued that evening read: “The Holy Father does not envisage that the aim of the Council is only to procure the spiritual good of the Christian people; it is also to be an invitation to the separated communities to join in the search for unity.”

In the following month, our Msgr Theo Heard should, according to the rules and regulations governing the Roman Curia, have submitted his resignation as Dean upon reaching his 75th birthday, on 24 February. However, with the new Pope contemplating sweeping changes, and not just within the Vatican, and not with just the Council, it seems that it was made clear to Dean Heard that he was expected to soldier on for a little while yet.

One of the changes which His Holiness soon acted upon was the creation of a department within the curia to deal with questions relating to Christian Unity.

Fr Augustin Bea SJ, a Rhinelander, was Pius XII’s confessor. For many years he had edited Biblica and the commentary Cursus Scripturae Sacrae. He was consultor to the Holy Office, to the Sacred Congregation for Rites, to the Pontifical Biblical Commission, and to the Congregation that dealt with Sacred Studies. Said to be a “most impressive” administrator, when he was nominated to the Sacred College of Cardinals in December of 1959, he was reckoned a worthy addition to that line of Jesuit cardinals running back to 1593 and Cardinal Toledo.

Fr Bea’s elevation to the Sacred College in December 1959, at the same time as Cardinal Heard, had been urged upon Pope John by some both within and outwith the curia anxious that the Holy Father’s determination that the Second Vatican Council should contribute to the process of reconciliation among Christians of all churches should not be sidetracked by the reactionary cardinals and other officials in the curia. Cardinal Bea was to go on to play a very influential role in the work of the Council; a role central to the legacy Good Pope John bequeathed the church and peoples he loved.

Pope Pius XII (a bit more)

2008-11-09T18:01:00.000-08:00

The family Pacelli, grandfather Marcantonio, father Filippo, brother Francesco, uncle Msgr Giuseppe and cousin Ernesto, founder of Banco di Roma and financial adviser to three Popes, were devoted servants of the Papacy. So, when in April of 1917, aged just 41 years, Msgr Eugenio Pacelli accepted his appointment as Nuncio to Bavaria, he accepted in that family spirit of commitment to service to Holy Mother Church. And the Papacy in consequence honoured him with the archiepiscopal dignity.

But this was far from a promotion for Eugenio Pacelli. As Secretary of the Congregation for the Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs of the Holy See, every papal nuncio answered to him. They were all archbishops appointed by papal brief of nomination, but he, a humble monsignore, was their boss!

His modern-day equivalent, the Secretary of the Second Section (Relations with States) of the Secretariat of State, is the Morocco born French prelate, Archbishop Dominique François Joseph Mamberti. Archbishop Mamberti entered the Vatican’s Diplomatic Service in 1986 and held appointments in Algeria, Chile, the UN in New York and Lebanon. Naturally, he also did a stint at head office.

He was nominated as titular Archbishop of Sagona upon his appointment as Apostolic Nuncio to Sudan and Apostolic Delegate to Somalia in May, 2002. From February, 2004, until September, 2006, he served as Apostolic Nuncio to Eritrea. He ceased being a Nuncio when he was appointed to his present position as replacement for the Italian Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo who had been appointed President of the Governorate of Vatican City State in succession to the American Cardinal Edmund C. Szoka. At the earliest opportunity Archbishop Lajolo was himself created cardinal (at the consistory of November 2007).

Archbishop Mamberti’s appointment represented not simply a significant promotion, he was getting closer to the top of the Vatican tree, but also a magnificent statement of both Papa Ratzinger’s and Cardinal Bertone’s faith and confidence in him.

And strange as it may seem, Eugenio Pacelli’s demotion from Secretary for Relations with States to Apostolic Nuncio to Bavaria, taking him not so much lower down the Vatican tree as out of it altogether, was an even greater testament to the faith and confidence both Papa della Chiesa and Cardinal Gasparri had in him!

Pope Benedict XV was himself well experienced in diplomatic affairs. He was a former diplomat, official of the Secretariat of State, President of the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy and sostituto, papal chief of staff. He and Gasparri could handle France and the allies. They needed someone they could absolutely rely on to handle the Germans. When the First World War ended, that need became even greater, not less.

Just one example of Pacelli’s diplomatic nous: after WWI, Archbishop Achille Ratti, a diplomatic neophyte, was sent as Apostolic Delegate to Poland. He almost disastrously became involved in the border plebiscite. Pacelli had to intervene to save the day; and, Ratti’s neck. Indeed, by suggesting his recall to Rome and promotion to save face all round, Eugenio Pacelli prepared the way for Achille Ratti to succeed Pope Benedict XV when that good man unexpectedly succumbed to complications of influenza.

It is important to note that from his base in Berlin, for a few years Archbishop Pacelli also had to deal with the Soviets as well as the Germans. He was fluent in Russian. And politics. But the minutiae of his time in Germany is not really worth going into here save to say this. German Catholics, lay or clerical, priest or prelate; Germans of all religions and none; Germans of whatever high or low station in life; Germans of whichever and all of the many and varied political hues; Germans involved in science, the arts, the law and culture: Nuncio Pacelli got to know and came to understand them all in a way no other diplomat of the era did.

When John Cornwell cited as proof of Nuncio Pacelli’s personal anti-Semitism a letter he sent from Munich in 1919 to Cardinal Gasparri, he totally failed to present it in any sort of context. So the least of the very many problems with his thesis of Pacelli as an anti-Semite, as Hitler’s Pope, is that when and where the Nuncio quotes typical German sentiments about, say, the Jewish/Communist revolutionaries, one of whom he had had to face down over the barrel of a gun in his own home, Cornwell ascribes these sentiments to Pacelli himself.

Eugenio Pacelli, after twelve long, hard and at times downright dangerous years in Germany was recalled to Rome and created cardinal priest in the title of Ss. Giovanni e Paolo on December 16, 1929, Two months later, he was appointed Cardinal Secretary of State on February 9, 1930, in succession to his long time mentor, Cardinal Gasparri. On April 1, 1935, he was also appointed Camerlengo.

Such was Pius XI’s faith in Eugenio Pacelli that he was quoted as having said: “When today the Pope dies, you’ll get another one tomorrow, because the Church continues. It would be a much bigger tragedy, if Cardinal Pacelli dies, because there is only one. I pray every day, God may send another one into one of our seminaries, but as of today, there is only one in this world.”

Cardinal Secretary of State Pacelli’s world was still dominated by Germany and the Germans. But, then, so was every other professional diplomat in Europe; and even further afield. And despite all their best efforts, it was clear that war was all but inevitable when Papa Ratti passed away on February 10, 1939. However, as the Romans say: “Pietro non muore”

Peter does not die. On March 2, 1939, his 63rd birthday, after only one day of deliberation and three ballots, the cardinal electors chose Eugenio Pacelli as the new Peter. He was as far as is known only the second serving Camerlengo to be elected Pope (Scotland’s benefactor, Pope Leo XIII was the first). More relevantly, he was the first Secretary of State elected Pope in over 270 years. The last had been Giulio Rospigliosi, Clement IX, elected on June 20, 1667.

This Clement was a man of great culture: a poet, dramatist and librettist, he is credited with having invented the comic opera. The most important task that fell to him during his short pontificate (he died on December 9, 1669) was far from comic. It presaged Eugenio Pacelli’s early days as the principal resident on the third floor of the Apostolic Palace.

In 1668, Clement IX acted as moderator during the Congress of Aix-La- Chapelle. By the so-called “Peace of Aachen” the Triple Alliance of England, Sweden and the United Provinces forced France to abandon its war against the Spanish Netherlands.

On the day following Eugenio Pacelli’s election, from Germany there came clear evidence that they would not accept him as a moderator in any attempt to forestall a conflagration. Berlin’s Morgenpost noted: ‘The election of Cardinal Pacelli is not accepted with favour in Germany because he was always opposed to Nazism and practically determined the policies of the Vatican under his predecessor.’”

None deterred, Pope Pius XII issued an immediate impassioned plea, telling the world: “Nothing is lost by peace, everything may be lost by war!”

Pius offered to put the Apostolic Palace at the disposal of plenipotentiaries from the major powers: Great Britain, France, the USA, Germany and the Soviet Union. He would personally welcome them and then, as per the Lateran Treaty provision, leave them to their deliberations with all of his staff, and especially his Secretary of State, Luigi Cardinal Maglione, at their service should they so wish.

This was all to no avail.

But for a consummate diplomat of the calibre, character and intelligence of Eugenio Pacelli there was always going to have to be a Plan B. No one was more aware than he of the true nature of the threat to humanity posed by the Nazi regime. When as Cardinal Secretary of State he had signed the Reichskonkordat on July 20, 1933, he was under no illusions as to the likely manner in which it would be regarded by Hitler’s regime.

Fifty-five letters of protest later, Mit Brenneder Sorge, which clearly and unequivocally condemned National Socialism as incompatible with Christianity, was authored, in German rather than Latin, on behalf of Pius XI to be read from every pulpit in Germany on Palm Sunday, 1937. And, more or less, it was despite the best efforts of the Gestapo. No civil government had anywhere so far condemned Nazism in such an out-of-hand manner!

In his 1942 Christmas Eve radio broadcast Pius XII spoke of his passionate concern “for those hundreds of thousands who, without any fault of their own, sometimes only by reason of their nationality or race, are marked down for death or progressive extinction.”

Again, no civil leader in any Allied country had uttered such a condemnatory rebuke nor made the facts so publicly known. The Nazis themselves recognised it for what it was: a very public denunciation of the Nazi extermination of the Jews. A newspaper editorial said it all for Hitler: “His speech is one long attack on everything we stand for… he is clearly speaking on behalf of the Jews… he is virtually accusing the German people of injustice toward the Jews, and makes himself the mouthpiece of the Jewish war criminals.”

However, Pius spoke as a religious and not a political leader. He began by stating that “the message of Jesus… is a message which lights up with heavenly truth a world that is plunged in darkness by fatal errors.”

Later he said: “He thus proclaimed and consecrated a message which is still, today, the Word of Eternal Life. That message can solve the most tortuous questions, unsolved and insoluble for those who bring to their investigations a mentality and an apparatus which are ephemeral and merely human; and those questions stand up, bleeding, imperiously demanding an answer, before the thought and the feeling of embittered and exasperated mankind.”

He then went on: “The watchword ‘I have compassion on the multitude’ is for Us a sacred trust which may not be abused; it remains strong, and impelling in all times and in all human situations, as it was the distinguishing mark of Jesus.”

While the Church must by needs stand aside from political, national or international conflicts, nonetheless she “cannot renounce her right to proclaim to her sons and to the whole world the unchanging basic laws, saving them from every perversion, frustration, corruption, false interpretation and error.”

The Nazis, and the world, knew full well what Pastor Angelicus, the subject earlier that year of the first ever film documentary on the life of a Pope, meant to convey. It was, indeed, “one long attack on everything we [the Nazis] stand for.”

After the war was ended, Pius XII wrote to an old friend, Bishop von Preysing of Berlin, whom he would elevate to the Sacred College in 1946. He explained: “We left it to the [local] bishops to weigh the circumstances in deciding whether or not to exercise restraint, ad maiora mala vitanda [to avoid greater evil]. This would be advisable if the danger of retaliatory and coercive measures would be imminent in cases of public statements by the bishop. Here lies one of the reasons We Ourselves restricted Our public statements. The experience We had in 1942 with documents which We released for distribution to the faithful gives justification, as far as We can see, for Our attitude.”

That he was absolutely correct to be generally circumspect is witnessed to by the many tributes paid to him by prominent Jews active in Jewish welfare throughout the war, amongst them Golda Meir, both at the end of the war and at the time of his death. Which death fortuitously gave us Good Pope John, a radical readjustment of the structure of the Sacred College of Cardinals, the first Scottish Cardinal since the Reformation, and Vatican II.

Pius XII (Part One)

2008-11-05T00:43:00.000-08:00

“Hitler’s Pope commemorated by the Pope of the Hitler Youth!”

Pope Benedict celebrated Mass in St Peter’s Basilica on Thursday, October 9, the 50th anniversary of the death of his illustrious predecessor, Pope Pius XII.

Doubtless by the time you will have the opportunity to read this, you will already have been exposed somewhere in the media to the sort of headline I anticipate above. But, then, the rank anti-Catholic bias of certain sections of the media should surprise no-one.

So, let us first of all deal with the present Holy Father’s purported membership of the Hitler Youth.

On September 30, Il Giornale, an Italian newspaper, published an interview with Msgr Georg Ratzinger, Pope Benedict’s older brother. Msgr Georg explained to Andrea Tornielli that they were both “forced to join the Hitler Youth because the State ordered all school-age kids, according to their age, to be signed up for certain youth groups. When it was obligatory, we were registered (by the school) as a block. There was no freedom to choose, and not showing up would have brought very negative consequences.”

But despite this, his brother Joseph “did not attend the meetings” and that had “brought economic harm to my family because by not doing so we could not receive the discounts for school tuition.”

Their father was a policeman who considered Nazism to be “a catastrophe and not only the great enemy of the Church but also of all faiths and of human life in general.” As a police officer antipathetic to the Nazi regime, their father was on a sticky wicket. He was in a position to help his local community, but only in so far as he kept his job. For his son to not attend the meetings of the Hitler Youth put his job in jeopardy, but he supported Joseph’s dissent; to assist his neighbours, he had to be circumspect in his dealings with the Nazis, but he supported Joseph’s open defiance.

Papa Ratzinger’s papa’s position was analogous to that of Papa Pacelli. The head of the household could openly do what some might consider to be but little, but he could and did support his sons in their doing as much as they could. Likewise, for Pius XII and his priests and prelates.
However, before considering Pius’s allegedly being “Hitler’s Pope” and his supposed “great silence”, it is first necessary to consider his pre-Papal career in order that we might properly assess how his background and training, as well as his experience and knowledge of the German people, their political masters, their spiritual leaders, their history and their country, may have shaped his attitudes and actions towards the Jews and their persecutors.

Pius XII was born in Rome on March 2, 1876, the son, grandson and great-grandson of lawyers, canon and civil. Eugenio Maria Giuseppe Giovanni Pacelli’s boyhood ill-health dictated that he be educated privately at home. Later, Eugenio was able to attend a local state-run secondary school before going on to study for the priesthood whilst still living at home. As a student for the Diocese of Rome, he enrolled at the Capranica and studied at the Gregorian University.

At the “Greg” the students of the Capranica traditionally sat just in front of the students from the Scots College. The Capranica was the alma mater of Pope Benedict XV and such did its reputation become during the 20th century that each year the Scots students would pick out from amongst this group of Italian classmates the one they thought most likely to become Pope.

His Scottish classmates could hardly miss with Eugenio Pacelli. They would early have become aware, for even student priests gossip, that his grandfather, Marcantonio, had founded L’Osservatore Romano, the Pope’s newspaper. They would also soon have come to know that Marcantonio Pacelli had been Pope Gregory XVI’s Minister of Finance and that it was he who, on November 16, 1849, the day following the murder of the Papal Minister, Count Pellegrino Rossi, on the steps of the Cancelleria, had accompanied Pius IX as he fled Rome to Gaeta disguised as a humble priest. Grandfather Pacelli later served Pio Nono as Deputy Minister of the Interior (1851-70).

Eugenio Pacelli, as per family tradition, but not necessarily because of family tradition, also became a canonist, adding a Doctorate in Canon Law to those in Divinity and Philosophy. I say “not necessarily because of” since it would seem that he had early set his sights not on parish ministry, but on working for the Holy See. If that meant the Diplomatic Service, a qualification in canon law was a prerequisite. Those whom the Vatican sends abroad to represent its interests must be deemed unlikely to foment schism, or to inadvertently declare war. For some reason those who run the Vatican have always believed that such rashness, or incompetence, would be less likely in a canon lawyer than in a theologian. (Good Pope John, himself a former nuncio, once jocularly said: “Show me a theologian and I can’t help thinking I’m looking at the enemy.”)

Ordained in April of 1899, Fr Eugenio Pacelli entered papal service in 1901. In 1904 he was appointed personal secretary to Archbishop Pietro Gasparri, Secretary of the Sacred Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs since 1901. (Now the Second Section of the Secretariat of State; with responsibility for diplomatic relations with States, it supervised negotiation of Concordats or similar agreements.)

Archbishop Gasparri was the finest academic jurist of his day and Fr Pacelli’s arrival in his office coincided with his additional appointment as Secretary to the Pontifical Commission for the Codification of Canon Law. In 1907 he was named Cardinal and appointed Chairman of the Commission. For thirteen years, in addition to his other duties, Pietro Gasparri was the driving force behind the production of the Codex for the whole Latin-rite Church. Naturally, Eugenio Pacelli assisted him in this work. Moreover, Eugenio’s father, Filippo, then Dean of the College of Consistorial Advocates (and as such a Monsignor, though a layman) was the only lay canon lawyer involved in the production of this new code.

However, his father’s appointment had nothing to do with Eugenio. On the contrary, it was likely due to Filippo’s influence that his son had in the first place obtained such a favourable appointment as that of Gasparri’s secretary. Favourable? Even before being rewarded with the sacred purple, Gasparri was a man of great influence. With his support, and on his coat tails, there was no knowing where an ambitious young prelate might go.

And look where Pacelli did eventually go!

For a time he had combined his duties as Gasparri’s right-hand man with lecturing to the Church’s trainee diplomats in the Pontifical Academy for Noble Ecclesiastics, now the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy. (Oddly, despite his future career as a diplomat, Pacelli was not an alumnus of the Academy; neither was good Pope John, also a nuncio before becoming Pope). However, he had to give this up when he was appointed Undersecretary for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs on March 7, 1911. Subsequently he was promoted to pro-Secretary (June 20, 1912) and then Secretary (February 1, 1914).

And he always bore with him the effects on his outlook and thinking that were the products of the overwhelming influence of Pietro Gasparri.

Gasparri, who had for twenty-eight years been a member of the law faculty of L’Institut Catholique in Paris, 1870-1898. Gasparri, who from Paris had urged the Pope and the Curia to reconcile themselves with the French Republic. Gasparri, who when in 1898 he was nominated titular archbishop of Cesarea di Palestina so loved France, its people and Church that he elected not to return to Rome for his Episcopal consecration, but to celebrate it in Paris, at the church of Saint-Joseph des Carmes, with François Cardinal Richaud, archbishop of the city as the principal Consecrator, assisted by two other French prelates: Louis François Sueur, archbishop of Avignon; and, Charles Turinaz, bishop of Nancy.

Could such a thoroughly Francophile man have a protégé who was pro-German, never mind pro-Nazi, when the first daughter of Holy Mother Church was likely to go to, and subsequently was at, war with Germany? Twice! To borrow a technical legal phrase from Rumpole of the Bailey: pull the other one, it’s got bells on!

Cardinal Gasparri was appointed Secretary of State in 1914 by the newly elected Pope Benedict XV and was named Camerlengo two years later, but his work on the new code did not end until 1917. It was promulgated on May 27 of that year and came into force on May 19, 1918.

In the weeks before the launch of the Code of Canon Law, it was announced on April 20, 1917, that Eugenio Pacelli was to be Papal Nuncio to Bavaria. He received Episcopal ordination on May 13, 1917, in the Sistine Chapel at the Hands of Pope Benedict XV and was provided to the titular See of Sardes. Aged 41, he finally left the family home and the comfort, care and cooking of his mother to fend for himself (I speak figuratively here) in Munich.
This appointment, and things which would flow from it, are of crucial importance when considering the criticisms made of Pius XII after the publication of Rudolph Hockhuth’s play Der Stellvertreter, The Representative, in the early 1960s.

Benedict XV dispatched a seven-point peace plan to the Allies on August 1, 1917. As Nuncio in Munich, Archbishop Pacelli was closely involved in trying to sell it to the German Government and General Staff. As it was, since it was a plan based on principles of justice, and ignored military realities, it was unattractive from the start to the Allies and although the German’s originally were not overtly hostile to it, they, too, soon cooled.

In 1922, Benedict XV died and was succeeded by Cardinal Ratti, Pius XI. On the death of the Pope, the post of Secretary of State, in effect the Pope’s closest and most influential adviser, falls vacant. However, Pius XI reappointed Cardinal Gasparri to the job. He became the first Secretary of State to serve two Popes.

Pius XI chose as his motto “Christ’s peace in Christ’s kingdom” By his choice of motto he sought to indicate to the faithful, and to their spiritual and temporal rulers, his belief that the Church must be active in, and not isolated from, the world in which it exists. Even before the world learned of his determination in this matter from his motto, he demonstrated it in dramatic form scarcely an hour after his election when he delivered his traditional blessing, Urbi et Orbi, from what had ceased to be, in 1870, the traditional spot, the central loggia, balcony, of St Peter’s Basilica.

In 1870, the States of the Church had been seized by the Italian Government. The Church subsequently refused to accept the Law of Guarantees on the grounds that the seizure was unjust. The Popes became “prisoners” within the Vatican Palace. By his dramatic gesture, Pius XI signalled his determination to resolve the matters alienating Church and State in Italy. In 1926, after the government withdrew a Bill from Parliament in recognition of the Church’s objections to it, Pius XI agreed that secret talks should be entered into with the Fascist government of Benito Mussolini.

The talks began on August 5, 1926. The Italian Government was represented by Domenico Barone, whilst the Church was represented by another son of Filippo Pacelli, Francesco. As per family tradition, Francesco Pacelli was a lawyer, both civil and canon, at the service of the Holy See. In 1924 Archbishop Pacelli had been responsible for negotiating a favourable concordat with Catholic Bavaria, and in 1929 he would negotiate a less advantageous one with Prussia. Important as these were in themselves, they had nothing like the impact of his brother’s successful negotiations with Il Duce’s representative.

On February 11, 1929 within the Lateran Palace Benito Mussolini and Cardinal Gasparri signed the Lateran Pacts which comprised a treaty (consisting of a preamble and 27 articles), a financial agreement, and a Concordat between the Holy See and the Kingdom of Italy. Italy accepted that the Holy See was entitled to full proprietary rights over the patriarchal basilicas outside of the Vatican: St John Lateran, St Mary Major, and St Paul’s-outside-the-Walls. The Church’s proprietorial rights over several other important churches and buildings in Rome and over the papal palace at Castelgandolfo were also recognised. The Popes need no longer be prisoners in the Vatican.

For its part, the Holy See averred its desire to remain aloof from inter-governmental disputes and stated its intention to absent itself from all international congresses called to resolve such disputes unless requested by the contending parties to act as honest broker. This was to come to lie at the very heart of the problems faced by Pius XII during WWII, giving rise to his supposed “great silence”.

Some important anniversaries

2008-11-05T00:38:00.000-08:00

Beijing: the opening ceremony for the Olympic Games was deliberately timed by the Chinese organising committee to begin at exactly 8 seconds after 8 minutes past 8 o’clock on the 8th day of the 8th month in the year two thousand and 8.

By jings, the Chinese must have a thing about that number 8!

And so, too, should we of the Catholic Church here in Scotland. For, was it not in the year 1878 that on the morning of Monday, March 4, as the very first official act of his pontificate, on the day following his papal coronation, His Holiness Pope Leo XIII restored the Scottish Episcopal Hierarchy? In the Apostolic Constitution Ex supremo Apostolatus apice Leo wrote: “What, therefore, our predecessor (Pope Pius IX, Pio Nono) was hindered by death from bringing to a conclusion, God, who is plentiful in mercy and glorious in all his works has granted us to effect, so that we might, as it were, inaugurate with a happy omen our Pontificate, which in these calamitous times we have received with trembling.”

Thirty years later, in 1908, the 19th International Eucharistic Congress was held in September, in London. Not only was this the first time that the Congress was held in an English-speaking country, it was also, and perhaps even more importantly, the first time since the Protestant Reformation that a Papal Cardinal Legate was welcomed on British soil.

It is also to this 1908 Eucharistic Congress that we in Scotland can trace the practice of frequent reception of Holy Communion. One of the greatest advocates of this was the founder of Carfin Grotto, Canon Taylor; and, it was he who organised the presentation of a paper on frequent reception of Holy Communion at the Congress.

But the Eucharistic Congress is not the only important event the centenary of which falls this year. 1908 was also the year in which the Catholic Churches of Scotland and of England and Wales were removed from the supervision of the Congregation de Propaganda Fide. We were no longer regarded by Rome as mission territory (sic transit Gloria mundi).

And on the debit side, this 1908 Eucharistic Congress was also the occasion of His Majesty’s Government offering the grossest insult to the 12,000,000 plus Catholic citizens of Great Britain and Ireland – not North or South, for in those days there were no parts of Ireland – and the then British Empire since the one delivered from the throne in the House of Lords following the death of Queen Victoria.

The 20th Century was barely three weeks old when Victoria died on Tuesday, January 22, 1901. When another three weeks had passed, Hansard recorded one of the details of the succession on Thursday, 14 February 1901. It reads:

The King’s Speech
The King being seated on the Throne, and the Commons being at the Bar with their Speaker, His Majesty made and subscribed the Declaration against Transubstantiation pursuant to the Bill of Rights and afterwards made a Most Gracious Speech.

The speech may indeed have been gracious, but the Accession Oath most definitely was not. King Edward VII swore:

“I, Edward, do solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, that I do believe that in the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper there is not any Transubstantiation of the Elements of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, at, or after, the Consecration thereof by any person whatsoever; and that the Invocation or Adoration of the Virgin Mary, or any other Saint, and the Sacrifice of the Mass, as they are now used in the Church of Rome, are Superstitious and Idolatrous.”

William Redmond would later say of this that the Catholic grievance in relation to it “never merely was that the language employed against ourselves and our religion was violent, abusive, and vulgar. Our great grievance was that our religion, and our religion alone of all the various beliefs in the world, was singled out by the King at the most solemn moment of his life for vehement and violent repudiation.”

The notable and noble Catholic, Lord Herries − who died in 1908 − later publicly stated that he had been present in the House of Lords that day seated close to the King when he made the Declaration. It is to Edward’s great credit that Lord Herries was able to assert that he had never seen anyone “so embarrassed and so confused” as the King had been that day. He had “run over the language of the declaration as if it hurt not only his own feelings, but the feelings of everyone around him.”

Difficult as it may seem, Henry Herbert Asquith, the Prime Minister in 1908, even managed to exceed this for grossness.

The detailed planning and organising of the Eucharistic Congress had taken eight months. The senior prelates from around the world who came to London were led by the papal legate, His Eminence Vincenzo Cardinal Vanutelli, Bishop of Palestrina. Other members of the Sacred College of Cardinals present were their Eminences: Michael Logue, Archbishop of Armagh; James Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore (who famously replied when asked what he thought of papal infallibility: “All I know is that every time I have met the Pope he called me Jibbons!); Cyriaco Maria Sancha y Hervas, Archbishop of Toledo and Patriarch of the W. Indies; Andrea Ferrari, Archbishop of Milan; Desire Mercier, Archbishop of Mechlen, Belgium; and, Francois Mathieu, the former Archbishop of Toulouse, but then of the Roman Curia. Sadly, Cardinal Mathieu took ill while in England and died in hospital in London shortly after the Congress ended.

With the eyes of the Catholic World on London, and the Eucharistic Congress already underway, HH Asquith banned the closing Eucharistic Procession!

Astonishingly, he did so citing the Roman Catholic Relief Act (10 George IV, c. 7 {13 April 1829}). Fifteen years earlier, in 1893, when it was proposed to hold a Eucharistic procession in Chorlton, the Protestant Alliance raised objections and tried to have it banned citing this very same Act. This was regarded as so serious by some that it was referred to in a question tabled in Parliament for answer by the then Home Secretary. Having, in the quaint expression of the day, “scouted” the matter, the Home Secretary announced that Her Majesty’s Government “did not intend to take any action.”

That then Home Secretary was as the Eucharistic Congress opened, the Prime Minister, HH Asquith. Since the closing Eucharistic procession was early agreed to between all concerned − the Eucharistic Congress organising committee, the Westminster City Council and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner – no one who mattered expected Asquith’s administration not to adhere to his earlier principles which were predicated on the belief that the penalties envisioned in the 1829 Catholic Emancipation Act were a dead letter.

But obviously fifteen years was a very long time in politics. And so, too, was less than a week; because at the start of the week Asquith was evidently, if not in favour, then, at least, not opposed to the procession. By the Thursday, he was. But, of course, he tried to get Archbishop Francis Alphonsus, later Cardinal, Bourne to say it was all his idea.
A decade later, and 1918 is not only remembered for an end being brought to the First World War, there was also the no small matter of the Education (Scotland) Act.

I could go on, but of all the 8th years going back over all the decades of the 130 years history of the Catholic Church in Scotland in the modern world, perhaps the most important, and not just for us but also for the Universal Church, was 1958.

Fifty years ago, in October 1958, His Eminence Angelo Cardinal Roncalli, Patriarch of Venice, noted in his diary: “Sister death came quickly and swiftly fulfilled her office. Three days were enough. On Thursday, October 9, at 3.52 am Pius XII was in Paradise.”

On Monday, September 29, at the papal summer residence, Castelgandolfo, His Holiness Pope Pius XII suffered a recurrence of a problem which had afflicted him in the past, hiccoughs. The following day found him so unwell that he was unable to speak to the pilgrims he received in audience. On the Thursday he seemed better and was able both to receive and address a large group of pilgrims. He gave special audiences to the Oratorian Fathers in Rome for their congress and to a party of railway-bookstall proprietors and newsvendors. This latter group he cautioned to be ever “vigilant about the quality of the publications” they put on display.

On Friday, October 3, Cardinal Spellman led 700 American pilgrims to Castelgandolfo. They had come from Lourdes. The Holy Father spoke to them about the Feast of the Guardian Angels which had been celebrated on the day before (Thursday, October 2). Of the month of October, Pius said to them that it “checks the vision for a moment, reminding one’s inner spirit that there is another world, a world invisible yet as real as the one you see, and quite as close to you.”

Perhaps he sensed that the hand of God already lay unkindly upon his shoulder.

Saturday brought the participants of an international congress of plastic surgeons. Whenever the Pope prepared a lengthy allocution for groups such as this, it was customary for it to be printed in advance and distributed among the group after the Holy Father had read out the concluding part. So nothing need have been read into Pius doing precisely this here. However, to their professional eyes it was evident that the Holy Father was unwell.

On that Saturday afternoon, Pius XII received a few notable lay pilgrims in special private audience. The last he greeted and spoke to was the actor (later Sir) Alex Guinness. On the Sunday an open air audience was held in gusty weather and in the afternoon the Pope walked in the gardens. In the evening he appeared at the window and blessed the pilgrims gathered in the courtyard below. However, at 3.30 on the Monday morning it became clear that His Holiness was very seriously ill.

Dr Riccardo Galeazzi-Lisi, the Medico di Sua Santità, was summoned from Rome, arriving within half an hour. The Pope’s sister, Elisabetta, and his nephews came soon after. In the morning those cardinals present in Rome began to arrive, as did also Msgr Domenico Tardini, effectively Pro-Secretary of State and who would soon become the real thing. Cardinal Tisserant, Dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals, was enjoying a brief holiday in his native Nancy, France, but immediately flew back to Rome on learning of the serious nature of the Pope’s condition and wasted no time in getting to Castelgandolfo.

On the Monday afternoon Pope Pius was given the Last Rites and received the viaticum. The Cardinal Vicar of Rome, Cardinal Mircara, called for prayers pro re gravi to be said in all the churches of Rome. A medical bulletin was issued saying in part: “the Pope was stricken with cerebral circulatory disturbances, the development of which is now under observation.”

The following afternoon saw the arrival of the Pope’s gerontologist, the Swiss Dr Paul Niehans, a medical charlatan of the highest order. Peter Hebblethwaite, biographer of John XXIII and Paul VI, wrote of him: “By 1958 Pius was clearly dying despite the best efforts of Dr Paul Niehans of Montreux, who believed he could rejuvenate the Pope by his controversial ‘living cell’ therapy – injections of finely ground tissue taken from freshly slaughtered lambs. The fact that Dr Niehans was a Protestant was sometimes taken to prove that Pius XII had ecumenical dispositions.” He adds that Pius’s recourse to such quack medicine (my description, not his) was “not the only example of Pius XII’s bizarre behaviour.”

At 6.30 on the Wednesday morning, the Pope, who had “spent a night without hiccoughs” was “stricken with a slight circulatory disturbance, similar to the one of last Monday.” That Wednesday was spent in a coma and according to The Tablet (which went to press that day) death was “delayed by an indomitable physical fortitude.”

Just before four o’clock on the Thursday morning, leaning over his seemingly lifeless body, three times Cardinal Tisserant called him by his given name, Eugenio. Three times Eugenio Maria Giuseppe Giovanni Pacelli failed the call. Hopefully he was, indeed, as the Cardinal Patriarch of Venice was confident he was, in Paradise. At least his death could be formally notarised and his signet ring could be defaced, the papal apartments sealed, and the cardinal electors not present in Rome summoned.

So what manner of man presented himself before the recording angel at 3.52 that October Thursday morning fifty years ago?

Act of Succession

2008-04-20T14:20:00.000-07:00

Interesting to read today that Her Majesty's Government are proposing to change the Act of Sucession in order to allow older princess's to ascend the throne instead of having to step aside in favour of a younger brother. Apparently, this is to bring the law in this regard into conformity with human rights principles.

No mention of reversing the discrimination against Catholics. If, in this regards, they didn't want to start with anything as allegedly complicated - it actually wouldn't be all that complicated - as the Act of Succession itself, what about the Oath of Accession?

The anti-Catholic Constitution

“It having pleased Almighty God to take to His mercy our late Most Gracious Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria of blessed memory, who departed this life yesterday between the hours of six and seven o’clock in the evening, at Osborne House, in the Isle of Wight; and Her late Majesty’s Most Honourable Privy Council, and others, having met this day at St James’s Palace, and having directed that His Royal Highness Albert Edward Prince of Wales be proclaimed King, by the style and Title of Edward the Seventh.”[Hansard, 23 Jan 1901.]

The 20th century was barely three weeks old when, on Tuesday 22 January 1901, Victoria died. The Queen was dead. Long live the King!

But King Edward was soon to discover that one of the first duties required of him under the constitution of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, as it then was, was most definitely NOT to his liking. Hansard for Thursday, 14 February 1901, records:

The King’s Speech
The King being seated on the Throne, and the Commons being at the Bar with their Speaker, His Majesty made and subscribed the Declaration against Transubstantiation pursuant to the Bill of Rights and afterwards made a Most Gracious Speech.

Victoria had reigned for over 63 years and so the terms of the Declaration which King Edward was required to make — which terms of words, obviously, had not been spoken from the Throne by any monarch in the (adult) lifetime of any of those present that day and so had become lost to the public mind — came as a shock not only to himself (see below), but also to many Members of both Houses of Parliament.

Moreover, members of the legislative assemblies of Canada, New Zealand and the new Commonwealth of Australia, which had just come into existence on 1 January 1901, the first day of the 20th century, were also scandalised by this Declaration, which was in fact a threefold one.

Firstly, Edward had to swear that he did not believe in Transubstantiation. Then, secondly, he had to further attest that he believed the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary, or any other Saint, and the Sacrifice of the Mass as practised by the Church of Rome were superstitious and idolatrous. These first two parts of the Accession Oath were sworn thus:

“I, Edward, do solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, that I do believe that in the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper there is not any Transubstantiation of the Elements of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, at, or after, the Consecration thereof by any person whatsoever; and that the Invocation or Adoration of the Virgin Mary, or any other Saint, and the Sacrifice of the Mass, as they are now used in the Church of Rome, are Superstitious and Idolatrous.”

It is worth noting that the founder of the Church of England, Henry VIII, “Defender of the Faith”, could not in good conscience have so sworn.

The third aspect of the Oath required Edward to pledge that he made this Declaration in the plain and ordinary sense of the words as they are commonly understood by English Protestants, “without any dispensation, or hope of dispensation, from the Pope or any other authority”.

The importance of this latter part of the Declaration is that no one secretly a Catholic, or in the process of converting to Catholicism, or even simply contemplating conversion, could in conscience swear the Declaration.

On 14 February 1901, seconding the traditional motion in the Commons to send an Humble Address thanking His Majesty for His Most Gracious Speech, Sir Andrew Agnew (Edinburgh, South) said: “We all feel that with a new reign and a new century we have entered upon a new and distinct stage in our history.”

Less than ten years later, after Edward’s sad demise, Asquith introduced on 28 June 1910 a Bill “To alter the form of the Declaration made by the Sovereign on Accession”. The proposed revised form of the Accession Declaration was intended to make it less offensive to the Roman Catholics of England and Wales, of Scotland and of Ireland, as well as to their then estimated 12,000,000 co-religionists “spread throughout the length and breadth of the Empire”.

For Britain’s Catholics it seemed that we were indeed entering a “new and distinct stage in our history”. Mr John G MacNeill recalled during the Second Reading Debate that: “Lord Herries, a Catholic nobleman who passed away a few months ago, stated publicly that he was in the House of Lords, close to King Edward when he made the Declaration, and he never saw anyone so embarrassed and so confused as the late King, who ran over the language of the declaration as if it hurt not only his own feelings, but the feelings of everyone around him.”

Earlier, during the First Reading Debate William Redmond had noted that the Catholic grievance in relation to this Declaration: “…never merely was that the language employed against ourselves and our religion was violent, abusive, and vulgar. Our great grievance was that our religion, and our religion alone of all the various beliefs in the world, was singled out by the King at the most solemn moment of his life for vehement and violent repudiation.”

How came this to be the case? In fact the Accession Declaration was never originally intended to be sworn by the Sovereign at all. It was drafted in 1678 during the reign of Charles II when according to Asquith as he introduced his Bill: “Parliament and the great mass of the population of this country (England!) were in a state, it may almost be said, of panic, in consequence of the revelations, or supposed revelations, of the existence and the ramifications of the Popish Plot.”

He was referring to the dastardly work of Titus Oates with his self-invented Jesuit plot to kill the King. In the hysteria whipped up by Danby and Shaftesbury, Parliament passed: “an Act for the more effectual preservation of the King’s person and Government by disabling Papists from sitting in either House of Parliament.” The Declaration it contained was to be made and subscribed by all Members of both Houses and by those other persons described in the Act as “sworn servants of the Sovereign”. It was not then intended that it ever need be sworn by the sovereign.

The intent of the Act was simply to remove from Parliament those Roman Catholic peers who up until that time had been excused from taking the Oath of Supremacy and had, therefore, been able to continue to sit and serve in Parliament. Now disbarred, like their Commoner fellow Catholics, and despite the fact that Titus Oates was soon executed for perjury, they would not be allowed to re-take their seats until the passing of the Relief Act of 1829.
Asquith’s modest proposal of June 1910 ― which could not, did not, and has not by one iota altered the constitutional position as to the Protestant Succession ― needless to say met with mindless but voluble opposition from the Ulster Unionist Orangemen in both Houses of Parliament and their Tory allies.

For example Mr Agar-Robartes (I kid you not) (St Austell Division) said: “Already Cornwall is roused, and even faithful Scotland is fretful. Scotland in the past has ever been a harbour of refuge for beaten Ministers. It would be a pity if in the future they had to go for safe seats to Ballyshannon or Connemara… I quite admit that it is laid down by statutory enactment that the King MAY not be a Roman Catholic. What we wish to see is that the King CAN not be a Roman Catholic.”

Mr Hilaire Belloc, a Catholic, observed in reply: “I have been told that there is a strong movement in Scotland, and I dare say there is, in favour of something rude being said about the Catholic Church; but I think it is quite untrue to say that there is a widespread and rising popular opposition to this proposal.”

And indeed there was not, and so it soon was passed.

(Belloc was, indeed, a true man of the people. Although his mother, Elizabeth Rayner Belloc ― a Unitarian who converted to Catholicism and was the granddaughter of the scientist and political reformer Joseph Priestley ― and his sister, Marie Belloc Lowndes, were strong supporters of women’s rights, he once opined: “I am opposed to women’s voting as men vote. I call it immoral, because I think the bringing of one’s women, one’s mothers and sisters, into the political arena disturbs the relations between the sexes.”)

King George VI died on Wednesday 6 February 1952. On the following Monday, 11 February, Sir Winston Churchill, the Prime Minister, rose in the Commons to move an Address and Message of Sympathy to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. He began: “With the end of the Victorian era we passed into what I feel we must call the terrible 20th century. Half of it is over and we have survived its fearful convulsions.”

The other half of that 20th century drew to its close at midnight on 31 December 2000, but as things currently stand, in the early days of the 21st century and the 3rd Christian Millennium, whoever next ascends the Throne in the House of Lords to swear and subscribe the Accession Declaration on the first sitting of the new Parliament after the death of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II (of England and Wales) and I (of Scotland ) will utter the same words she did on Tuesday, 4 November 1952:

“I, Name, do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant, and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestant succession to the Throne, uphold and maintain the said enactments to the best of my powers according to law.”

However, while Her Majesty’s Roman Catholic subjects might well have been less offended by the terms of this form of the oath as compared to that sworn by Edward VII, nonetheless they should have been sensible to the fact that the terms of that previous oath were implicit in the newer one. In 1689 an Anglican “Divine” (a holder of a Doctor of Divinity degree) wrote: “…in Matrimonial Contracts, though the Clause of Divorce in Case of Adultery, be not expressed, AS IT IS USUAL TO EXCLUDE CLAUSES THAT ARE ODIOUS (my emphasis); yet cannot we infer from thence, that that condition is not as expressly to be understood, as if it had been expressed in plain words and at large." [Tracts Vol 13, 1688-1691; David Murray Collection (1928) Mu 44-d.13, University of Glasgow Special Collection.]

And, of course, as things currently stand Mr Agar-Robartes will have his way for whomsoever our next monarch MAY be, he (or she) CANNOT be a Catholic!

I'll come back to the Act of Succession shortly.

Yer man in Rome

2008-04-20T02:01:00.000-07:00

I visited Rome in November of 2007 for Pope Benedict's Second Consistory.

This is yer man, above, with His Eminence Stanislao Esteban Cardinal Karlic and, on the left, on his lonesome in front of the Stuart monument in St Peter's Basilica.

Greetings from the West of Scotland

2008-04-20T01:50:00.000-07:00

I have tried to establish a blog before, but sadly soon fell by the wayside.

Having had to follow the Holy Father's American pilgrimmage via the internet from my sickbed, I have decided to give it another go.