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

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

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

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

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

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.

Consistory may be announced Wednesday

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.